Category Archives: Criticism

Preface to RSV Bible – Confirms Scriptural Errors

Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611. The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as “untrue translations.” He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.

[“PREFACE” to THE BIBLE , REVISED STANDARD VERSION, Published By WM. Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, For The British & Foreign Bible Society, Printed in Great Britain, RS53P-100M-1972(14) – ISBN 0564 001015, Reproduced]
Yet Tyndale’s work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops’ Bible, 1568. In 1582 a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims. The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale. The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the “Authorized Version” of the English-speaking peoples.
The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression . . . the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.” It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manu­scripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant em­bodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the works was published in 1901.
Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.
The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry as to whether further revision was necessary. For more than two years the Committee worked upon the problem of whether or not revision should be undertaken; and if so, what should be its nature and extent. In the end the decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version of 1901, which will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other.
In 1937 the revision was authorized by vote of the Council, which directed that the resulting version should “embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship and preserve those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature.”
Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations. The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee. The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1951.
The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testa­ment. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.
The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the “Masoretes”) of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants.
Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized. Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient ver­sions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text. In every such instance a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived, and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text.
Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbrevia­tion Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.
The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes the present translation will be found to render a Hebrew word in a sense quite different from that of the traditional interpretation. It has not been felt necessary in such cases to attach a footnote, because no change in the text is involved and it may be assumed that the new rendering was not adopted without convincing evidence. The analysis of religious texts from the ancient Near East has made clearer the significance of ideas and practices recorded in the Old Testament. Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain. Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote. If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note. It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated. To record all minority views was obviously out of the question.

A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah“; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word lord (or in certain cases god) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scrip­tures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four conso­nants YHWH of the Name, which bad come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). The ancient Greek translators substituted the word Kyrios (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.
The revisers in the 1870’s had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870’s—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann’s studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called “Biblical Greek” were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koine, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.
A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible—;the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -etb and -th, it came to pass that whosoever, whatsoever, inso­much that, because that, for that, unto; howbeit, peradventure, holden, afore­time, must needs, would fain, behooved., to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. Thus, the King James Version uses the word “let” in the sense of “hinder,” “prevent” to mean “precede”allow” in ‘the sense of “approve,” “communicate” for “share,” “conversation” for “conduct,” “comprehend” for “overcome,” “ghost” for “spirit,” “wealth” for “well-being,” “allege” for “prove,” “demand” for “ask,” “take no thought” for “be not anxious,” etc.
The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published on September 30, 1952, and has met with wide acceptance. This preface does not undertake to set forth in detail the lines along which the revision proceeded. That is done in pamphlets entitled An Introduc­tion to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament and An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, written by members of the Committee and designed to help the general public to understand the main principles which have guided this comprehensive revision of the King James and American Standard versions.
These principles were reaffirmed by the Committee in 1959, in connection with a study of criticisms and suggestions from various readers. As a result, a few changes were authorized for subsequent editions, most of them corrections of punctuation, capitalization, or footnotes. Some of them are changes of words or phrases made in the interest of consistency, clarity or accuracy of translation.
The Second Edition of the translation of the New Testament (1971) profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946. Many proposals for modification were submitted to the Committee by individuals and by two denominational com­mittees. All of these were given careful attention by the Committee.
Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7.5-3-8.11), are restored to the text, separated from it by a blank space and accompanied by informative notes describing the various arrangements of the text in the ancient authorities. With new manuscript support two passages, Luke 22.19b-20 and 24.51b, are restored to the text, and one passage, Luke 22.43-44 is placed in the note, as is a phrase in Luke 12.39. Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32, 51, etc.).
Among the new notes are those giving the equivalence of ancient coinage with the contemporary day’s or year’s wages of a labourer Mt 18.24,28; 20.2, etc.). Some of the revisions clarify the meaning through rephrasing or reordering the text (see Mk 5.42; Lk 22.29-30; Jn 10.33; I Cor 3.9; 2 Cor 5.19; Heb 13.13). Even when the changes appear to be largely matters of English style, they have the purpose of presenting to the reader more adequately the meaning of the text (see Mt 10.8; 12.1; 15.29; 17.20; Lk 7.36; 11.17; 12.40; Jn 16.9; Rom 10.16; 1 Cor 12.24;2 Cor 2.3; 3.5, 6; etc.).
The Revised Standard Version Bible seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. We have resisted the temptation to use phrases that are merely current usage, and have sought to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition. We are glad to say, with the King James translators: “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better.”
The Bible is more than a historical document to be preserved. And it is more than a classic of English literature to be cherished and admired. It is a record of God’s dealing with men, of God’s revelation of Himself and His will. It records the life and work of Him in whom the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God’s Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today. It is our hope and our earnest prayer that this Revised Standard Version of the Bible may be used by God to speak to men in these momentous times, and to help them to understand and believe and obey His Word.
Source: “PREFACE” to THE BIBLE , REVISED STANDARD VERSION, Published By WM. Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, For The British & Foreign Bible Society, Printed inGreat Britain, RS53P-100M-1972(14) – ISBN 0564 001015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do you say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly he made it falsely; the pen of the scribes made it a lie [Jeremiah 8:8]
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write misfortune which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from justice, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! [Isaiah 10:1-2]
So question arises that:
What should be done by a simple person who believes in God, wants to obey Him,  seek eternal bliss and salvation?
Its very simple, if someone is seriously  sick, he/she shall search for a credible doctor and if any stage it is found that he is fake, unreliable, immediately treatment is discontinued, one looks for batter one. God has given us wisdom and intellect to discern truth from falsehood. We spend years in education and learning to earn livelihood and respectable life. We have to make some effort to discover and earn eternal life, blessings and spiritual peace.
Take a bath, wear clean cloths, sit down alone and pray to God: “O, God of the universe, You are the Creator, Cherishes of all, You are Gracious and Merciful, I want to follow the right path which is pleasing to You, please help me, guide me to the Truth. Amen.
  1. Free your mind of all your existing beliefs & ideas.
  2. If you are a Christian, take Red or Blue lettered Gospels”, pen , marker and papers. Start reading Gospels, slowly, gradually, take your time, don’t be in hurry.
  3. Underline, highlight, note down the teachings, sayings of Jesus Christ what he physically and openly preached to people and 12 disciples, not in “VISIONS or Dreams”. [Thomas Jefferson’s Experience]
  4. Discard what is not common in four Gospels. Critically examine it, accept what is clear, obvious your are near to the Truth, discard any belief which is ambiguous, not clearly , openly preached by Jesus Christ.
  5. Look around for people who you find practicing closer to the real teachings of Jesus Christ. Seek their assistance. 
  6. Continue with your quest for Truth till you find it. Keep praying to God for His help. Onus lies with Him.
  7. Keep exploring, keep reading ………. This site will assist in this regards. 

Analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVZ7MLQorwA&w=350&h=250

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzrbEJTVY4I&w=350&h=250

Is the Bible God’s Word: [Video 01:30] A great debate between Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Jimmy Swaggart. The debate took place in U.S.A at the University of Louisiana, It’s Worth seeing Don’t miss it.

Is the Bible God’s Word: Q & A [01:44]

The New Testament books appear to have been completed within the 1st century. However, the original manuscripts of the New Testament books do not survive today. The autographs were lost or destroyed a long time ago. What survives are copies of the original. Generally speaking, these copies were made centuries after the originals from other copies rather than from the autograph. The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business card sized fragment from the Gospel of JohnRylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century after Christ. With Christinisation of Roman Empire, process of canonization of Bible started.

Conference of Nicea: In 325 C.E in the Conference of Nicea (Iznik-Turkey),  four Gospels were selected out of a minimum of three hundred available and the rest, including the Gospel of Barnabas (most authentic), were ordered utterly destroyed. All Gospels written in Hebrew were also ordered to be destroyed.

Councils of Laodicea & Carthage: In 364 C.E, another council in Laodicea confirmed decisions of Nicea and added six books as believable.  In 397 C.E another conference was held at Carthage, with 126 learned participants. They confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils and also added six more Books.

Conferences at Trullo, Florence and Trent: Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo, Florence and Trent (1545-63 C.E). They confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage and included nearly all the previously doubtful books in the list of acknowledged books. The status of these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Protestants Repudiation: During 16th Century, the Protestants repudiated the decisions of the councils and declared that there are only 66 truly “inspired” books of God, and not 73 as claimed by the Catholics. If it is blasphemy to take even a title from the Bible, who is blaspheming? Those who added these seven books from the very beginning, or those who expunged them.

Jesus Christ did not dictate the revelations, nor were they written in his time, there is no chain of narration leading to Jesus Christ. The language of Jesus Christ and his disciples was not Greek. Most of disciples of Jesus Christ were illiterate or little educated to compose highly complex books in Greek. The recent discovery of ‘most ancient’ manuscripts around 200 C.E, do not contain some passages interpreted to support Church doctrines in ‘ancient’ scripts 400 C.E or later. Obviously with the passage of time the scripts get corrupted.

The real authors of the books of New Testament are unknown; they have been attributed to disciples of Jesus Christ for the purpose of credibility. The writers of these books do not claim authorship, hence we read Gospel ‘according to’ Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as against ‘by’ etc. Most biblical scholars accept that the Gospel According to St Mark was the first written of the four canonical Gospels. Mark’s Gospel was written in Greek, and there is ample textual evidence that Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel were based on Mark’s Gospel.St John’s Gospel appears to have been based on Luke’s Gospel, but the author clearly also knew Mark’s Gospel and copied some material from it.
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another. When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. Note, however, that a single difference prevents agreement. There has been an estimate of between 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. The New Testament has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions: the 4th-century-CE Alexandrian text-type; the Western text-type, also very early but prone to paraphrase and other corruptions; and the Byzantine text-type, which includes over 80% of all manuscripts, the majority comparatively very late in the tradition.
Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The Bodmer Papyri are a group of twenty-two papyri discovered in Egypt in 1952. They are named after Martin Bodmer who purchased them. The papyri contain segments from the Old and New Testaments, early Christian literature, Homer and Menander. The oldest, Papyrus 66, dates to c. 200. [‘most ancient’] The papyri are kept at the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, in ColognySwitzerland outside Geneva. In 2007 the Vatican Library acquired two of the papyri, Papurus 74 and Papyrus 75, which are kept at the Vatican Library, believed to contain the world’s oldest known written fragment from the Gospel of Luke, the earliest known Lord’s Prayer, and one of the oldest written fragments from the Gospel of John. …. ……  Among the Bodmer Papyri, as well as gospel texts: Papyrus 66 (P66), is a text of the Gospel of John, dating around 200 C.E, in the manuscript tradition called the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from the papyrus fragment in the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, it is the oldest testimony for John; it does not contain the passage concerning the moving of the waters (John 5:3b-4) and the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), which could assumed to be a later addition? The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars.
According to Textual scholar Bart Ehrman : “It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes – altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament….”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwlVFE9yHrI&w=350&h=250

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3N4ymHO-eA&w=350&h=250

Isaiah 7:14

The RSV New Testament was well received, but reactions to the Old Testament were varied and not without controversy. It was claimed that the RSV translators had translated the Old Testament from an odd viewpoint. Some specifically referred to a Jewish viewpoint, pointing to agreements with the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh and the presence on the editorial board of a Jewish scholar, Harry Orlinsky, and claimed that other views, including those of the New Testament, were not considered. The focus of the controversy was the translation of the Hebrew word  עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” rather than the traditional Christian translation of “virgin”, agreeing with the Greek word παρθένος (parthenos) found in theSeptuagint‘s translation of this passage as well as the New Testament at Matthew 1:23.

Mark 16:9-20

Discovery of ‘most ancient texts’ of Bible revealed that some important verses mentioned in translations of ‘ancient texts’ like RSV based upon KJV were not found in ‘most ancient texts’ , hence they were removed in the 1971 first edition of RSV Bible. This was not an ordinary rephrasing or reordering the text but a very serious matter. Some of the basic doctrines of Church evolved over the period were rendered useless devoid of scriptural authority and support. Many Fundamentalists and evangelicals resisted this because it was hitting the very foundations of Christianity. It was decided by them to boycott the RSV, which could result in to huge financial loss to the publishers. So they decided to restore the relevant passages with some remarks in 2nd Edition of 1971 RSV Bible to make it acceptable to the Church. One has to go in to details of each change to fully comprehend the implications.  Let’s analyze these passages and remarks:
 Mark 16:9-20 is not found in ‘most ancient texts’, this passage narrates the reappearance of Jesus Christ after alleged crucifixion and directing disciples to preach to humanity, one of the basis of Christina Doctrine “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover:(Mark 16:15-18). This ambiguous, un authentic passage not found in most ancient scripts conflicts and contradicts the clear teachings  of Jesus Christ: Matthew 10:5-6 &15:24, reproduced below:
“ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”[Matthew 10:5-6]
“But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [Matthew 15:24]

John 8:3-11

This passage regarding a women accused of adultery brought to Jesus Christ, who is set free  by Jesus Christ against law of Moses, on condition that only innocents to stone her.
This passage is not found in ‘most ancient scripts’, it also conflict with law of Mosses and statement of Jesus at Matthew 5:17-19:-
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”[Matthew 5:17-19]
Removing this passage was correct but just to support the church doctrine  to abrogate  law of Moses, this passage have restored with a foot note.
The strikethrough lines [in Luke 22:19b-20]  are not found in most ancient scripts, this is a later addition, to support Christian Church sacraments and doctrines’:-
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”[Luke 22:19b-20]
Luke 24:51  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. This passage was  not found in most ancient script, so was deleted  deleted but now have been restored in 1971, 2nd Edition to support the doctrines of Church.
Luke 22:43-44  And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.
With new manuscript support two passages, Luke 22.19b-20 and 24.51b, are restored to the text: and one passage, Luke 22.43-44 is placed in the note, as is a phrase in Luke 12.39. Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32, 51, etc.).

Trinity: 1Epistle of John 5: 7 & 8

Trinity the basic doctrine of Christianity, has been the subject of intense debate since 2000 years. The basis of theology of any faith rests upon the authority of the holy scripture, however in the case of Trinity, it is not the case. The only one verse in the whole of Bible which, the supporters interpreted to supports this Christian dogma, and that is: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”(The first Epistle of John; 5:7,8). (in some volumes this  changed as : “There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree”). In the foot not of this verse in ‘New International Version Bible’ it is written; ‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteen century. Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.’s in a footnote to this verse opine: “It is generally agreed that this verse has no manuscript authority and has been inserted.”The fundamentalist Christians still retain this fabrication whereas; in all the modern translations including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) this pious deceit has been unceremoniously expunged.  Dr.Brad D Aherman, in his scholarly discourse at Stanford University in 2007, also mentions about the the reference form the Old Testament in support of Trinity and how it got in to the scripture!
Excepts remind us what Jesus Christ and prophets said in Bible:
.”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”(Moses, Deuteronomy;6:4; Jesus,Mark;12:29).
“Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee,”(2 Samuel;7:22 )
“And he (Jesus) said unto him, Why you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”(Mathew;19:17).
“Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right” [Jesus Christ;Luke;12:57]

John 9:38 

The comparison of different translations of verse 9:38 of Gospel according to John is self explanatory:
  1. “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him” (King John’s Version)
  2. “He said, “Lord, I believe”; and he worshiped him”(Revised Standard Version)
  3. “And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage”(Darby Translation: by John Nelson Darby)
  4. “I believe, Sir,” he said. And he threw himself at his feet.”(By Richard Francis Weymouth)
  5. “and he said, “I believe, sir,’ and bowed before him.” (Young’s Bible 1863: By Robert Young).

Revelation 1:8

Jesus claimed divinity, the argument goes, when he said: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (King James Version; Revelation;1:8). Alpha (The 1st), Omega (the last) are the attributes of God. However in the Revised Standard Version, biblical scholars corrected the translation and wrote: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (RSV;Revelation;1:8). A correction was also made in the New American Bible produced by Catholics. The translation of that verse has been amended to put it in its correct context as follows: “The Lord God says: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ ” Hence after this correction, it becomes evident that this was a statement of God wrongly attributed to Jesus.

John 3:16

According to the Bible of King James Version of 1611 : “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only ‘begotten’ Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. (John;3:16). The word ‘begotten’ used here (John;3:16) has been expunged in the Bible- Revised Standard Version, being wrongly added because word ‘begotten’ does not exist in the original Greek script.
The Bible and violence:
From its earliest days, Christianity has been challenged to reconcile the scriptures known as the “Old Testament” with the scriptures known as the “New Testament“. Ra’anan S. Boustan asserts that “(v)iolence can be found throughout the pages of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament.” Philip Jenkins describes the Bible as overflowing with “texts of terror”. In response to these charges of violence in their scriptures, many Christian theologians and apologists respond that the “God of the Old Testament” is a violent God whereas the “God of the New Testament” is a peaceful and loving God. This approach is challenged by those who point out that there are also passages in the New Testament that tolerate, condone and even encourage the use of violence. For example, Terence Freitheim describes the Old Testament as a “book filled with …the violence of God”. He asserts that while the New Testament does not have the same reputation, it too is “filled with violent words and deeds, and Jesus and the God of the New Testament are complicit in this violence.
John Hemer asserts that the two primary approaches that Christian teaching uses to deal with “the problem of violence in the Old Testament” are:
  1. Concentrate more on the many passages where God is depicted as loving – much of Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Deuteronomy.
  2. Explain how the idea of God as a violent punishing war monger is all part of the historical and cultural conditioning of the author and that we can ignore it in good faith, especially in the light of the New Testament.
In opposition to these two approaches, Hemer argues that to ignore or explain away the violence found in the Old Testament is a mistake. He asserts that “Violence is not peripheral to the Bible it is central, in many ways it is the issue, because of course it is the human problem.” He concludes by saying that “The Bible is in fact the story of the slow, painstaking and sometimes faltering escape from the idea of a God who is violent to a God who is love and has absolutely nothing to do with violence.”
Gibson and Matthews assert that many studies of violence in the Bible focus on violence in the Old Testament while ignoring or giving little attention to the New Testament. They find even more troubling “those studies that lift up the New Testament as somehow containing the antidote for Old Testament violence.” This apparent contradiction in the sacred scriptures between a “God of vengeance” and a “God of love” are the basis of a tension between the irenic and eristic tendencies of Christianity that has continued to the present day. Read  more >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence 

Sexuality in Bible:

Some passages are as follows:-
  • Ham’s actions in Genesis 9:20-25, are debated upon because of the vagueness of the script, but some interpret it as Ham doing something sexual with his father, Noah, while Noah was passed out drunk in his tent.
  • Lot has sex with his daughters after they get him drunk for the purpose of becoming pregnant in Genesis 19:30-36.
  • The sin of Onan (Genesis 38:8-10), which is often misinterpreted as masturbation, was coitus interruptus or withdrawal. He was also violating the duty of Yibbum. Onan was struck down and killed by God because he “spilt his seed upon the ground” while he had a duty to impregnate his brother’s wife (to whom he was brother-in-law).
  • Genesis 38:13-24 tells the story of Tamar trading sex with Judah for ownership of a goat.
  • Exodus 20:14, as the seventh commandment, prohibits the act of adultery. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
  • Leviticus 18 lists several prohibitions concerning sex according to biblical rule.
  • Deuteronomy 23:17-18 states the prohibition of prostitution. 17″(A)None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, (B)nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. 18″You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a [a](C)dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. (New American Standard Bible)
  • Second Samuel 11:3-5 describes David with Bathsheba and his act of adultery with her. “3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, ‘Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?’ 4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. 5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, ‘I am with child'”
  • Proverbs 5 shows how sexual sin causes scars and pain.

Bible Vulgarities & Obscenities:

The list is meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not a vulgarity or obscenity is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, vulgarities or obscenities. One such passage from KJV Ezekiel 23:1-49  may suffice.

See also:

The Bible: A Short History: http://t.co/Lmi6pOk , http://wp.me/pCgrB-FB

Bible Vulgarities & Obscenities It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not a vulgarity or obscenity is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the 

Read More :

What should be done by a simple person who believes in God, wants to obey Him,  seek eternal bliss and salvation?
Its very simple, if someone is seriously  sick, he/she shall search for a credible doctor and if any stage it is found that he is fake, unreliable, immediately treatment is discontinued, one looks for batter one. God has given us wisdom and intellect to discern truth from falsehood. We spend years in education and learning to earn livelihood and respectable life. We have to make some effort to discover and earn eternal life, blessings and spiritual peace.
Take a bath, wear clean cloths, sit down alone and pray to God: “O, God of the universe, You are the Creator, Cherishes of all, You are Gracious and Merciful, I want to follow the right path which is pleasing to You, please help me, guide me to the Truth. Amen.
  1. Free your mind of all your existing beliefs & ideas.
  2. If you are a Christian, take Red or Blue lettered Gospels”, pen , marker and papers. Start reading Gospels, slowly, gradually, take your time, don’t be in hurry.
  3. Underline, highlight, note down the teachings, sayings of Jesus Christ what he physically and openly preached to people and 12 disciples, not in “VISIONS or Dreams”. [Thomas Jefferson’s Experience]
  4. Discard what is not common in four Gospels. Critically examine it, accept what is clear, obvious your are near to the Truth, discard any belief which is ambiguous, not clearly , openly preached by Jesus Christ.
  5. Look around for people who you find practicing closer to the real teachings of Jesus Christ. Seek their assistance. 
  6. Continue with your quest for Truth till you find it. Keep praying to God for His help. Onus lies with Him.
  7. Keep exploring, keep reading ………. This site will assist in this regards. 

 The Bible: A Short History: http://t.co/Lmi6pOk , http://wp.me/pCgrB-FB

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (The Jefferson Bible) by Thomas Jefferson





Read  or

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting (literally with a razor and glue) numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson’s condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages interpreted to support divinity of Jesus Christ.
Using a razor, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order, mingling excerpts from one text to those of another in order to create a single narrative. Thus he begins with Luke 2 and Luke 3, then follows with Mark 1 and Matthew 3. He provides a record of which verses he selected and of the order in which he arranged them in his “Table of the Texts from the Evangelists employed in this Narrative and of the order of their arrangement”. 
Consistent with his naturalistic outlook and intent, most supernatural events are not included in Jefferson’s heavily edited compilation. Paul K. Conkin states that “For the teachings of Jesus he concentrated on his milder admonitions (the Sermon on the Mount) and his most memorable parables. What resulted is a reasonably coherent, but at places oddly truncated, biography. If necessary to exclude the miraculous, Jefferson would cut the text even in mid-verse.” Historian Edwin Scott Gaustad explains, “If a moral lesson was embedded in a miracle, the lesson survived in Jeffersonian scripture, but the miracle did not. Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor, Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus’ role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer.”

Therefore The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus’ resurrection are also absent from his collection.

He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813: In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.

Conclusion:
Thomas Jefferson believed that the pure-principled teachings of Jesus should have been separated from the dogma and abuse of organized religion of the day. This led him to recast, by cutting and pasting from the gospels, a new narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus, where, according to Jefferson, “there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  

How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible

Thomas Jefferson, together with several of his fellow founding fathers, was influenced by the principles of deism, a construct that envisioned a supreme being as a sort of watchmaker who had created the world but no longer intervened directly in daily life. A product of the Age of Enlightenment, Jefferson was keenly interested in science and the perplexing theological questions it raised. Although the author of the Declaration of Independence was one of the great champions of religious freedom, his belief system was sufficiently out of the mainstream that opponents in the 1800 presidential election labeled him a “howling Atheist.”

In fact, Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”

The second of the two biblical texts he produced is on display through May 28 at the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History (NMAH) after a year of extensive repair and conservation. “Other aspects of his life and work have taken precedence,” says Harry Rubenstein, chair and curator of the NMAH political history division. “But once you know the story behind the book, it’s very Jeffersonian.”

Jefferson produced the 84-page volume in 1820—six years before he died at age 83—bound it in red leather and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He had pored over six copies of the New Testament, in Greek, Latin, French and King James English. “He had a classic education at [the College of] William & Mary,” Rubenstein says, “so he could compare the different translations. He cut out passages with some sort of very sharp blade and, using blank paper, glued down lines from each of the Gospels in four columns, Greek and Latin on one side of the pages, and French and English on the other.”

Much of the material Jefferson elected to not include related miraculous events, such as the feeding of the multitudes with only two fish and five loaves of barley bread; he eschewed anything that he perceived as “contrary to reason.” His idiosyncratic gospel concludes with Christ’s entombment but omits his resurrection. He kept Jesus’ own teachings, such as the Beatitude, “Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God.” The Jefferson Bible, as it’s known, is “scripture by subtraction,” writes Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University.

The first time Jefferson undertook to create his own version of Scripture had been in 1804. His intention, he wrote, was “the result of a life of enquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system, imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” Correspondence indicates that he assembled 46 pages of New Testament passages in The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. That volume has been lost. It focused on Christ’s moral teachings, organized by topic. The 1820 volume contains not only the teachings, but also events from the life of Jesus.

The Smithsonian acquired the surviving custom bible in 1895, when the Institution’s chief librarian, Cyrus Adler, purchased it from Jefferson’s great-granddaughter, Carolina Ran­dolph. Originally, Jefferson had bequeathed the book to his daughter Martha.

The acquisition revealed the existence of the Jefferson Bible to the public. In 1904, by act of Congress, his version of Scripture, regarded by many as a newly discovered national treasure, was printed. Until the 1950s, when the supply of 9,000 copies ran out, each newly elected senator received a facsimile Jefferson Bible on the day that legislator took the oath of office. (Disclosure: Smithsonian Books has recently published a new facsimile edition.)

The original book now on view has undergone a painstaking restoration led by Janice Stagnitto Ellis, senior paper conservator at the NMAH. “We re-sewed the binding,” she says, “in such a way that both the original cover and the original pages will be preserved indefinitely. In our work, we were Jefferson-level meticulous.”

“The conservation process,” says Harry Rubenstein, “has allowed us to exhibit the book just as it was when Jefferson last handled it. And since digital pictures were taken of each page, visitors to the exhibition—and visitors to the web version all over the world—will be able to page through and read Jefferson’s Bible just as he did.”

By Owen Edwards, a freelance writer and author of the book Elegant Solutions.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html#ixzz2e28YXlvQ

 

Related:

Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv

Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

List of Contradictions of Jesus by Paul to make New Theology

Paul of Tarsus, a Jew with Roman citizenship, who never met Jesus Christ in his lifetime, took active part in persecution of followers of Jesus, accepted “thorn in flesh from messenger of Satan”, claimed to be 13th disciple through a “vision” with conflicting narrtives at three places in Acts. He changed the doctrines and teachings of Jesus Christ to conform with the pagan traditions and practices of Greece-Roman pagans. He succeeded to a transform monotheistic Jewish faith in to pagan religion which has nothing in common with Christ except his name.

Maccoby’s theories on Paul:

According to Hyam Maccoby (1924–2004) the  British Jewish scholar and dramatist specializing in the study of the Jewish and Christian religious tradition, the founding of Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism was entirely the work of Paul of Tarsus. In this Maccoby’s view is largely based on that of Heinrich Graetz.
Maccoby claimed that Paul was a Hellenized Jewish convert or perhaps even a Gentile, coming from a background exposed to the influence of Gnosticism and the pagan mystery religions such as the Attis cult, a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity. The mystery religions, according to Maccoby, were the dominant religious forms in the Hellenistic world of that age and so, would have strongly influenced Paul’s mythological psychology. Maccoby partially derived this theory from fragments of the writings of opponents of Ebionites, particularly in the treatise on Heresies by Epiphanius of Salamis.
Maccoby considered Paul’s claims to an orthodox Pharisaic Jewish education to be false, asserting that while many of Paul’s writings sound authentic to the uninitiated, they actually betray an ignorance of the original Hebrew scripture and the subtleties of Jewish Law. Maccoby claimed that an examination of the New Testament indicates that Paul knew no Hebrew at all, and relied entirely on Greek texts that no actual Pharisee would ever use because they were not properly translated.

According to Maccoby, Paul fused the historical story of Jesus’ crucifixion with elements of contemporary mystery religions and Gnosticism [Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية‎ al-ġnūṣīh) is the belief that the material world created by the demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced (God‘s world).], developing such new non-Judaic mythic ideas as the Trinity and the Last Supper. Paul also made an attempt to find prophetic justification for his newly created myth in the Old Testament. Paul came to present Jesus as a dying and rising savior deity similar to those from the Hellenistic mystery cults, fused with the historical pedigree of Judaism, thus giving birth to a powerful new myth whose preaching gained him a large following. As the Jerusalem group of the original disciples of Jesus gradually became aware of Paul’s teachings, bitter hostility ensued between them.
Maccoby interpreted certain New Testament passages (for example Paul’s account of his quarrel with Peter in the Incident at Antioch) as remnants of authentic accounts of this hostility. However, the Jewish Rebellion of 66-70 soon brought a violent end to the Jerusalem sect, and the Gentile Church founded by Paul emerged as the winner by default. Maccoby viewed the Book of Acts as a later attempt by the Pauline Church to present the relations between Paul and the Jerusalem disciples as harmonious, thus presenting the Pauline Church as legitimized by the chain of apostolic succession reaching back to the original disciples of Jesus. Maccoby also conjectured that the Jewish-Christian sect of Ebionites may have been an authentic offshoot of the original Jerusalem community.
Maccoby focused his work on tracing the roots of anti-Semitism back to an early-Christian origin, and on disassociating Christianity from a truly Jewish background. Maccoby placed the blame for the death of Jesus on the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators from the Sadducee party, who controlled the Temple, its funds, and its police. He considered the Gospel accounts of the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees as an invention of the Pauline Church, and argued that Jesus himself subscribed to Pharisaic Judaism as revealed in such texts as the Sermon on the Mount. [Wikipedia]

Here some of the contradictions introduced by Paul against teachings of Jesus Christ as available in NT have been enumerated.

While one may not agree with all of them, any fair-minded individual could make his own conclusions.

Contradiction #1

This is a major one. Jesus clearly claimed to have personally delivered the Gospel to the world.
Jn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Paul would like you to think that doctrines that Jesus did not teach (eg. Deity of Christ, blood atonement, “grace”, demotion of the Law, abolition of the Sabbath, church hierarchy, etc etc) was brought via him.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus spent years training 12 apostles and 70-odd disciples as witnesses of Jesus and his words. But the main doctrines of the Christian church were delivered to humanity via a claimed revelation to a single witness: Paul. Jesus said that 2 or 3 witnesses are a necessary minimum for something to be true.

Contradiction #2

Jesus teaches that the Law has not been annulled.

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[Luke 16:16-17]
Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Paul teaches that it has.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Contradiction #3
Jesus teaches equality of believers.

Mt 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ; and you are all brethren.

Paul not only sets himself up as a teacher, he sets up a church hierarchy!
1Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Tim 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Contradiction #4
Jesus says that the Gospel must be preached without financial reward.
Mt 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Paul disagrees, as do the multitude of churches.
1Cor 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

Contradiction #5
Jesus teaches to bless unbelievers.

Mt 5:44 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;
[Mark 6:27-28]

Paul teaches that unbelievers should be cursed.
1Cor 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

Contradiction #6
Jesus teaches to follow/imitate Him.

Jn 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Paul teaches to follow him.
1Cor 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. [KJV=”Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.”]

Contradiction #7
Here’s how Jesus dealt with one accused of sexual sin.
Jn 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Paul’s solution was a little more Draconian.
1Cor 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit [NKJV = his spirit] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Contradiction #8
Here’s how Jesus treated the sin of blasphemy.
Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. [Luke 12:10]

Paul’s solution was again Draconian.
1Tim 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Contradiction #9
Eating things sacrificed to Idols was prohibited in the Law, and is specifically mentioned as something not permitted in Revelations.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Paul gives “liberty” to eat these things.

1Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake:

Contradiction #10
Jesus had no difficulty with speaking to women, even though this was unusual in that culture.
Jn 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

Contrasted with Paul’s chauvinism.
1Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Tim 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Contradiction #11
Jesus taught that God’s forgiveness is dependent on us forgiving others.

Mt 6:14 For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (NIV)
And:
Forgive and you will be forgiven (Lk 6:37).

The parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35 illustrates this point with someone who was forgiven by God, but remained unforgiving to others.

Paul understood that he was forgiven:

1Tim 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of out Lord was exceedingly abundant with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

But when someone sinned against Paul, Paul did not forgive the very sin he admitted to being guilty of only a few sentences earlier.

1Tim1:18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophesies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom Hymanaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

By not understanding this principle of conditional (or reciprocal) forgiveness, Paul contradicts Jesus. Furthermore, Paul asks us to believe that forgiveness is obtained by some other means:

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Contradiction #12
Paul says that one is saved by “faith” and “confession”

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
1Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus teaches precisely the opposite.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
[NKJV = lawlessness].
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

James adds this observation:
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Contradiction #13
As discussed in an earlier thread, Paul wants it to be known that he is a spiritual father to his flock.
1Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul must have forgotten about this little number.
Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Contradiction #14
Jesus preaches meekness.
Mt 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Paul’s version of meekness is rather conditional and mixed with threats.
1Cor 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Contradiction #15
Paul teaches that his followers will be judges on judgement day.
1Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Jesus has other ideas.
Jn 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.

Contradiction #16
Paul specifically seeks to please men and to be “all things to all men”.
1Cor 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Cor 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Paul clearly failed to comprehend these teachings of Jesus.
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Jn 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

Contradiction #17
Paul makes this claim:
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.

Which Jesus pre-emptively dismissed with these words:
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Contradiction #18
Jesus teaches that God is not a God of the dead.

Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
Mk 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Paul contradicts this, demonstrating his unawareness of the words of Jesus.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Contradiction #19
Paul teaches public prayer.
1 Tim 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Jesus teaches private prayer.
Mt 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Contradiction #20
Paul thinks that once saved always saved.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Sadly—not true.
Lk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Contradiction #21
Jesus is careful to attribute his teachings to God (another nail in the coffin of the Jesus is God theory).
Jn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Paul has no difficulty taking the credit.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel

Contradiction #22
Jesus teaches that Eternal life will cost you everything you own.
Mt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Lk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Not only does Paul fail to teach this, he teaches that eternal life is entirely free.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In fact, many churches go further and claim that believing in their religion will make you materially prosperous.

Contradiction #23
Paul is deferential to worldly authority, claiming that it comes from God.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Jesus refutes this idea.
Jn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

It may not be supposed that we need Jesus to tell us that earthly powers are often corrupt, but here it is anyway:
Mt 17:25b “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” 26 Peter said to him “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first.”

Contradiction #24
Jesus teaches charity.
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Paul is concerned that welfare is going to cost his church too much.
1Tim 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Contradiction #25
Jesus’ teaching on “Sanctification”
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Is “blood” and “thy truth” the same thing?
Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

And I don’t quite understand how this works, but its kind of funny really.
1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Contradiction #26
Paul makes a stark admission that he cannot control his sinful nature in Romans 7
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

25b So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Rather, imitate Jesus who teaches thus:
Mt 22:37 Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.” (Mk 12:30, Deut 6:5)

and

Jn 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.”

and

Jn 5:14 “Sin no more”

If you hate something, should you not stop doing it?

Contradiction #27
Jesus prophesised this:
Jn 9:4 “I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.”

Paul says the opposite.
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv

Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace

Jesuism & Pauline Christianity


Jesuism (Jesusism or Jesuanism) is the philosophy or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and adherence to those teachings. Jesuism is distinct from and sometimes opposed to mainstream Christianity. In particular, the term is often contrasted with the theology attributed to Paul of Tarsus and modern Church dogma. Jesuism is not opposed to the Christian Bible or Church doctrine, but rather it does not affirm their authority over theteachings of Jesus. As a philosophy, Owen Flanagan characterized Jesusism asnaturalistic and rationalist, rejecting the conflict between faith and science. Though not specifically associated with Jesuism, the red letter Bibles are one method of studying the teachings of Jesus.
Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to the Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle through his writingsOrthodoxChristianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. Others, as detailed below, perceive in Paul’s writings, teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the canonical gospels, early Acts and the rest of the New Testament, such as the Epistle of JamesOpponents of the same era include the Ebionites and NazarenesJewish Christianswho rejected Paul for straying from Second Temple JudaismReference is made to the large number of non-canonical texts, some of which have been discovered during the last 100 years, which show the many movements and strands of thought emanating from Jesus’ life and teaching or which may be contemporary with them, some of which can be contrasted with Paul’s thought.
Christian anarchists, such as Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy, believe Paul distorted Jesus’ teachings. Tolstoy claims Paul was instrumental in the church’s “deviation” from Jesus’ teaching and practices, whilst Hennacy believed “Paul spoiled the message of Christ.” According to Tom O’Golo, the Ebionites believed Paul was a false prophet whose task was not to convert Romans to Christians but Christians to Romans. Irenaeusbishop of Lyon, wrote in the latter half of the 2nd century that the Ebionites rejected Paul as an apostate from the law, using only a version of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, known as the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Tom O’Golo postulates several key elements were added by Paul to Christian theology that weren’t evident in Jesuism. These included:
  1. Original sin
  2. Making Jews the villains
  3. Making Jesus divine
  4. Transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood
  5. Jesus’ death being seen as atonement for human sin
  6. Making Jesus the Messiah
  7. Shifting the emphasis from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
  8. Enlarging the chosen people to include anyone who accepted Jesus as Saviour
  9. Making salvation a matter of belief in Jesus almost regardless of the demands of the Torah
  10. Establishing a hierarchy (literally a holy order) to create and control a Church and more importantly to create and control the beliefs of its membership.
Christianity of today is not the old original Christianity. It is not Jesusism, for it is not the religion which Jesus preached. Is it not time to make Christianity the religion which He personally preached and which He personally practiced?”[ Harvard theologian Bouck White, in 1911, also defined “Jesusism” as “the religion which Jesus preached”. Lord Ernest Hamilton in 1912 wrote that “Jesuism” was simply to love one another and love God. The philosophy of Jesusism was described in the book The Naked Truth of Jesusism from Oriental Manuscripts, penned by theologian Lyman Fairbanks George in 1914, as follows:
  1. It is to restore Jesus’ sayings to their original purity.
  2. It is to eradicate from the Gospels the interpolations of the Middle Ages.
  3. It is to relate the misconceptions revealed by recent archaeological research.
  4. It is to present Jesus from an economic viewpoint.
  5. It is to break through the spell spectral of Cosmic Credulity.
  6. It is to toll the knell of schism through Jesusism.

Society of Jesus

Pope Francis, elected in 2013, has become the first Jesuit Pope. Jesuists, members of the Society of Jesus is a Christian male religious order of the Roman Catholic Church. The members are called Jesuits and are also known colloquially as “God’s Marines”, these being references to founderIgnatius of Loyola‘s military background and members’ willingness to accept orders anywhere in the world and live in extreme conditions. The society is engaged inevangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes and promote social justice and ecumenical dialogue. Following conntroversies are debated:

Power-seeking

The Monita Secreta (Secret Instructions of the Jesuits), published in 1612 and in 1614, in Kraków, is alternately alleged to have been written either by Claudio Acquaviva, the fifth general of the society, or written by Jerome Zahorowski. The purported Secret Instructions of the Jesuits are the methods to be adopted by the Jesuits for the acquisition of greater power and influence for the Society and for the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the book is a forgery, fabricated to ascribe a sinister reputation to Society of Jesus.

Political intrigue

In England, Henry Garnet, one of the leading English Jesuits, was hanged for misprision of treason, because of his knowledge of the Gunpowder Plot (1605). The Plot was the attempted assassination of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in a single attack, by exploding the Houses of Parliament. Another Jesuit, Oswald Tesimond, managed to escape arrest for his involvement in the Gunpowder Plot.

Casuistic justification

Jesuits have been accused of using casuistry to obtain justifications for unjustifiable actions. (cf. formulary controversy and Lettres Provinciales, by Blaise Pascal). Hence, the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English language, records “equivocating” as a secondary denotation of the word “Jesuit”. Contemporary critics of the Society of Jesus include Jack ChickAvro Manhattan,Alberto Rivera, and Malachi Martin, author of The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church(1987).

Anti-Semitism

Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews), an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus. The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946.

Theological rebellion

Within the Roman Catholic Church, there has existed a sometimes tense relationship between Jesuits and the Vatican due to questioning of official Church teaching and papal directives, such as those on abortion, birth controlwomen deacons, homosexuality, and liberation theology. Usually this theological free thinking is academically oriented, being prevalent at the university level. From this standpoint, the function of this debate is less to challenge the magisterium than illustrate the church’s ability to compromise in a pluralist society based on shared values which do not always align with religious teachings. The previous two Popes have appointed Jesuits to powerful positions in the Church; John Paul II appointed Roberto Tucci, S.J., to the College of Cardinals, after serving as the chief organizer of papal trips and public events. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have appointed 10 Jesuit Cardinals to notable jobs. Benedict XVI appointed Jesuits to notable positions in his curia, such as Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, S.J. as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Rev.Federico Lombardi, S.J., Vatican Press Secretary. Pope Francis, elected in 2013, has become the first Jesuit Pope.

References:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Network

Baptism

Baptism, or purification from sin by water, is supposed by many to be an exclusive Christian ceremony. The idea is that circumcision was given up, butbaptism took its place as a compulsory form indispensable to salvation, and was declared to have been instituted by Jesus himself or by his predecessor John.[316:1] That Jesus was baptized by John may be true, or it may not, but that he never directly enjoined his followers to call the heathen to a share in the privileges of the Golden Age is gospel doctrine;[316:2] and this saying:

“Go out into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature. And whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but whoever believes not shall be damned,”
must therefore be of comparatively late origin, dating from a period at which the mission to the heathen was not only fully recognized, but even declared to have originated with the followers of Jesus.[316:3] When the early Christians received members among them they were not initiated by baptism, but with prayer and laying on of hands. This, says Eusebius, was the “ancient custom,” which was followed until the time of Stephen. During his bishopric controversies arose as to whether members should be received “after the ancient Christian custom” or by baptism,[316:4] after the heathen custom. Rev. J. P. Lundy, who has made ancient religions a special study, and who, being a thorough Christian writer, endeavors to get over the difficulty by saying that:
“John the Baptist simply adopted and practiced the universal custom of sacred bathing for the remission of sins. Christ sanctioned it; the church inherited it from his example.”[316:5]
When we say that baptism is a heathen rite adopted by the Christians, we come near the truth. Mr. Lundy is a strong advocate of the type theory—of which we shall speak anon—therefore the above mode of reasoning is not to be wondered at.
The facts in the case are that baptism by immersion, or sprinkling in infancy, for the remission of sin, was a common rite, to be found in countries the most widely separated on the face of the earth, and the most unconnected in religious genealogy.[317:1]
If we turn to India we shall find that in the vast domain of the Buddhist faith the birth of children is regularly the occasion of a ceremony, at which the priest is present. In Mongolia and Thibet this ceremony assumes the special form of baptism. Candles burn and incense is offered on the domestic altar, the priest reads the prescribed prayers, dips the child three times in water, and imposes on it a name.[317:2]
Brahmanism, from the very earliest times, had its initiatory rites, similar to what we shall find among the ancient Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Mr. Mackenzie, in his “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia,” (sub voce “Mysteries of Hindustan,”) gives a capital digest of these mysteries from the “Indische Alterthum-Skunde” of Lassen. After an invocation to the SUN, an oath was demanded of the aspirant, to the effect of implicit obedience to superiors, purity of body, and inviolable secrecy. Water was then sprinkled over him, suitable addresses were made to him, &c. This was supposed to constitute theregeneration of the candidate, and he was now invested with the white robe and the tiara. A peculiar cross was marked on his forehead, and the Tau cross on his breast. Finally, he was given the sacred word, A. U. M.[317:3]
The Brahmans had also a mode of baptism similar to the Christian sect of Baptists, the ceremony being performed in a river.
The officiating Brahman priest, who was called Gooroo, or Pastor,[318:1] rubbed mud on the candidate, and then plunged him three times into the water. During the process the priest said:
“O Supreme Lord, this man is impure, like the mud of this stream; but as water cleanses him from this dirt, do thou free him from his sin.”[318:2]
Rivers, as sources of fertility and purification, were at an early date invested with a sacred character. Every great river was supposed to be permeated with the divine essence, and its waters held to cleanse from all moral guilt and contamination. And as the Ganges was the most majestic, so it soon became the holiest and most revered of all rivers. No sin too heinous to be removed, no character too black to be washed clean by its waters. Hence the countless temples, with flights of steps, lining its banks; hence the array of priests, called “Sons of the Ganges,” sitting on the edge of its streams, ready to aid the ablutions of conscience-stricken bathers, and stamp them as white-washed when they emerge from its waters. Hence also the constant traffic carried on in transporting Ganges water in small bottles to all parts of the country.[318:3]
The ceremony of baptism was a practice of the followers of Zoroaster, both for infants and adults.
M. Beausobre tells us that:
“The ancient Persians carried their infants to the temple a few days after they were born, and presented them to the priest before the sun, and before the fire, which was his symbol. Then the priest took the child and baptized it for the purification of the soul.Sometimes he plunged it into a great vase full of water: it was in the same ceremony that the father gave a name to the child.”[318:4]
The learned Dr. Hyde also tells us that infants were brought to the temples and baptized by the priests, sometimes by sprinkling and sometimes by immersion, plunging the child into a large vase filled with water. This was to them a regeneration, or a purification of their souls. A name was at the same time imposed upon the child, as indicated by the parents.[318:5]
The rite of baptism was also administered to adults in the Mithraic mysteries during initiation. The foreheads of the initiated being marked at the same time with the “sacred sign,” which was none other than the sign of the CROSS.[319:1] The Christian Father Tertullian, who believed it to be the work of the devil, says:
“He BAPTIZES his believers and followers; he promises the remission of sins at the sacred fount, and thus initiates them into the religion of Mithra; he marks on the forehead his own soldiers,” &c.[319:2]
“He marks on the forehead,” i. e., he marks the sign of the cross on their foreheads, just as priests of Christ Jesus do at the present day to those who are initiated into the Christian mysteries.
Again, he says:
“The nations who are strangers to all spiritual powers (the heathens), ascribe to their idols (gods) the power of impregnating the waters with the same efficacy as in Christian baptism.” For, “in certain sacred rites of theirs, the mode of initiation is by baptism,” and “whoever had defiled himself with murder, expiation was sought in purifying water.”[319:3]
He also says that:
“The devil signed his soldiers in the forehead, in imitation of the Christians.”[319:4]
And St. Augustin says:
“The cross and baptism were never parted.”[319:5]
The ancient Egyptians performed their rite of baptism, and those who were initiated into the mysteries of Isis were baptized.[319:6]
Apuleius of Madura, in Africa, who was initiated into these mysteries, shows that baptism was used; that the ceremony was performed by the attending priest, and that purification and forgiveness of sin was the result.[319:7]
The custom of baptism in Egypt is known by the hieroglyphic term of “water of purification.” The water so used in immersion absolutely cleansed the soul, and the person was said to be regenerated.[320:1]
They also believed in baptism after death, for it was held that the dead were washed from their sins by Osiris, the beneficent saviour, in the land of shades, and the departed are often represented (on the sarcophagi) kneeling before Osiris, who pours over them water from a pitcher.[320:2]
The ancient Etruscans performed the rite of baptism. In Tab. clxxii. Gorius gives two pictures of ancient Etruscan baptism by water. In the first, the youth is held in the arms of one priest, and another is pouring water upon his head. In the second, the young person is going through the same ceremony, kneeling on a kind of altar. At the time of its baptism the child was named, blessed and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross.[320:3]
Baptism, or the application of water, was a rite well known to the Jews before the time of Christ Jesus, and was practiced by them when they admitted proselytes to their religion from heathenism. When children were baptized they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and fed with milk and honey.[320:4] “It was not customary, however, among them, to baptize those who were converted to the Jewish religion, until after the Babylonish captivity.”[320:5] This clearly shows that they learned the rite from their heathen oppressors.
Baptism was practiced by the ascetics of Buddhist origin, known as the Essenes.[320:6] John the Baptist was, evidently, nothing more than a member of this order, with which the deserts of Syria and the Thebais of Egypt abounded.
The idea that man is restrained from perfect union with God by his imperfection, uncleanness and sin, was implicitly believed by the ancient Greeks andRomans. In Thessaly was yearly celebrated a great festival of cleansing. A work bearing the name of “Museus” was a complete ritual of purifications. The usual mode of purification was dipping in water (immersion), or it was performed by aspersion. These sacraments were held to have virtue independent of the dispositions of the candidates, an opinion which called forth the sneer of Diogenes, the Grecian historian, when he saw some one undergoing baptism by aspersion.
“Poor wretch! do you not see that since these sprinklings cannot repair your grammatical errors, they cannot repair either, the faults of your life.”[321:1]
And the belief that water could wash out the stains of original sin, led the poet Ovid (43 B. C.) to say:
“Ah, easy fools, to think that a whole floodOf water e’er can purge the stain of blood.”
These ancient Pagans had especial gods and goddesses who presided over the birth of children. The goddess Nundina took her name from the ninth day,on which all male children were sprinkled with holy water,[321:2] as females were on the eighth, at the same time receiving their name, of which addition to the ceremonial of Christian baptism we find no mention in the Christian Scriptures. When all the forms of the Pagan nundination were duly complied with, the priest gave a certificate to the parents of the regenerated infant; it was, therefore, duly recognized as a legitimate member of the family and of society, and the day was spent in feasting and hilarity.[321:3]
Adults were also baptized; and those who were initiated in the sacred rites of the Bacchic mysteries were regenerated and admitted by baptism, just as they were admitted into the mysteries of Mithra.[321:4] Justin Martyr, like his brother Tertullian, claimed that this ablution was invented by demons, in imitation of thetrue baptism, that their votaries might also have their pretended purification by water.[321:5]
Infant Baptism was practiced among the ancient inhabitants of northern Europe—the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders—long before the first dawn of Christianity had reached those parts. Water was poured on the head of the new-born child, and a name was given it at the same time. Baptism is expressly mentioned in the Hava-mal and Rigs-mal, and alluded to in other epic poems.[322:1]
The ancient Livonians (inhabitants of the three modern Baltic provinces of Courland, Livonia, and Esthonia), observed the same ceremony; which also prevailed among the ancient Germans. This is expressly stated in a letter which the famous Pope Gregory III. sent to their apostle Boniface, directing him how to act in respect to it.[322:2]
The same ceremony was performed by the ancient Druids of Britain.[322:3]
Among the New Zealanders young children were baptized. After the ceremony of baptism had taken place, prayers were offered to make the child sacred, and clean from all impurities.[322:4]
The ancient Mexicans baptized their children shortly after birth. After the relatives had assembled in the court of the parents’ house, the midwife placed the child’s head to the east, and prayed for a blessing from the Saviour Quetzalcoatle, and the goddess of the water. The breast of the child was then touched with the fingers dipped in water, and the following prayer said:
“May it (the water) destroy and separate from thee all the evil that was beginning in thee before the beginning of the world.”
After this the child’s body was washed with water, and all things that might injure him were requested to depart from him, “that now he may live again and be born again.”[322:5]
Mr. Prescott alludes to it as follows, in his “Conquest of Mexico:”[322:6]
“The lips and bosom of the infant were sprinkled with water, and the Lord was implored to permit the holy drops to wash away that sin that was given to it before the foundation of the world, so that the child might be born anew.” “This interesting rite, usually solemnized with great formality, in the presence of assembled friends and relations, is detailed with minuteness by Sahagun and by Zuazo, both of them eyewitnesses.”
Rev. J. P. Lundy says:
“Now, as baptism of some kind has been the universal custom of all religious nations and peoples for purification and regeneration, it is not to be wondered at that it had found its way from high Asia, the centre of the Old World’s religion and civilization, into the American continent. . . .
“American priests were found in Mexico, beyond Darien, baptizing boys and girls a year old in the temples at the cross, pouring the water upon them from a small pitcher.”[323:1]
The water which they used was called the “WATER OF REGENERATION.”[323:2]
The Rev. Father Acosta alludes to this baptism by saying:
“The Indians had an infinite number of other ceremonies and customs which resembled to the ancient law of Moses, and some to those which the Moores use, and some approaching near to the Law of the Gospel, as the baths or Opacuna, as they called them;they did wash themselves in water to cleanse themselves from sin.”[323:3]
After speaking of “confession which the Indians used,” he says:
“When the Inca had been confessed, he made a certain bath to cleanse himself, in a running river, saying these words: ‘I have told my sins to the Sun (his god); receive them, O thou River, and carry them to the Sea, where they may never appear more.‘”[323:4]
He tells us that the Mexicans also had a baptism for infants, which they performed with great ceremony.[323:5]
Baptism was also practiced in Yucatan. They administered it to children three years old; and called it REGENERATION.[323:6]
The ancient Peruvians also baptized their children.[323:7]
History, then, records the fact that all the principal nations of antiquity administered the rite of baptism to their children, and to adults who were initiated into the sacred mysteries. The words “regenerationem et impunitatem perjuriorum suorum“—used by the heathen in this ceremony—prove that the doctrines as well as the outward forms were the same. The giving of a name to the child, the marking of him with the cross as a sign of his being a soldier of Christ, followed at fifteen years of age by his admission into the mysteries of the ceremony of confirmation, also prove that the two institutions are identical. But the most striking feature of all is the regeneration—and consequent forgiveness of sins—the being “born again.” This shows that the Christian baptism indoctrine as well as in outward ceremony, was precisely that of the heathen. We have seen that it was supposed to destroy all the evil in him, and all things that might injure him were requested to depart from him. So likewise among the Christians; the priest, looking upon the child, and baptizing him, was formerly accustomed to say:
“I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out and depart from this infant, whom our Lord Jesus Christ has vouchsafed to call to this holy baptism, to be made member of his body and of his holy congregation. And presume not hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards this infant, whom Christ hath bought with his precious blood, and by this holy baptism called to be of his flock.”
The ancients also baptized with fire as well as water. This is what is alluded to many times in the gospels; for instance, Matt. (iii. 11) makes John say, “I, indeed, baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with FIRE.”
The baptism by fire was in use by the Romans; it was performed by jumping three times through the flames of a sacred fire. This is still practiced in India. Even at the present day, in some parts of Scotland, it is a custom at the baptism of children to swing them in their clothes over a fire three times, saying, “Now, fire, burn this child, or never.” Here is evidently a relic of the heathen baptism by fire.
Christian baptism was not originally intended to be administered to unconscious infants, but to persons in full possession of their faculties, and responsible for their actions. Moreover, it was performed, as is well known, not merely by sprinkling the forehead, but by causing the candidate to descend naked into the water, the priest joining him there, and pouring the water over his head. The catechumen could not receive baptism until after he understood something of the nature of the faith he was embracing, and was prepared to assume its obligations. A rite more totally unfitted for administration to infants could hardly have been found. Yet such was the need that was felt for a solemn recognition by religion of the entrance of a child into the world, that this rite, in course of time, completely lost its original nature, and, as with the heathen, infancy took the place of maturity: sprinkling of immersion. But while the age and manner of baptism were altered, the ritual remained under the influence of the primitive idea with which it had been instituted. The obligations were no longer confined to the persons baptized, hence they must be undertaken for them. Thus was the Christian Church landed in the absurdity—unparalleled, we believe, in any other natal ceremony—of requiring the most solemn promises to be made, not by those who were thereafter to fulfill them, but by others in their name; these others having no power to enforce their fulfillment, and neither those actually assuming the engagement, nor those on whose behalf it was assumed, being morally responsible in case it should be broken. Yet this strange incongruity was forced upon the church by an imperious want of human nature itself, and the insignificant sects who have adopted the baptism of adults only, have failed, in their zeal for historical consistency, to recognize a sentiment whose roots lie far deeper than the chronological foundation of Christian rites, and stretch far wider than the geographical boundaries of the Christian faith.
The intention of all these forms of baptism is identical. Water, as the natural means of physical cleansing, is the universal symbol of spiritual purification. Hence immersion, or washing, or sprinkling, implies the deliverance of the infant from the stain of original sin.[325:1] The Pagan and Christian rituals, as we have seen, are perfectly clear on this head. In both, the avowed intention is to wash away the sinful nature common to humanity; in both, the infant is declared to be born again by the agency of water. Among the early Christians, as with the Pagans, the sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered. By the delay of their baptism, they could venture freely to indulge their passions in the enjoyments of this world, while they still retained in their own hands the means of a sure and easy absolution. St. Constantine was one of these.


FOOTNOTES:
[316:1]The Rev. Dr. Geikie makes the assertion that: “With the call to repent, John united a significant rite for all who were willing to own their sins, and promise amendment of life. It was the new and striking requirement of baptism, which John had been sent by divine appointment to INTRODUCE.” (Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 394.)
[316:2]See Galatians, ii. 7-9. Acts, x. and xi.
[316:3]See The Bible for Learners, vol. iii. pp. 658 and 472.
[316:4]See Eusebius: Eccl. Hist., lib. 7, ch. ii.
[316:5]Monumental Christianity, p. 385.
[317:1]“Among all nations, and from the very earliest period, WATER has been used as a species of religious sacrament. . . . Water was the agent by means of which everything was regenerated or born again. Hence, in all nations, we find the Dove, or Divine Love, operating by means of its agent, water, and all nations using the ceremony of plunging, or, as we call it, baptizing, for the remission of sins, to introduce the candidate to a regeneration, to a new birth unto righteousness.” (Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. i. p. 529.)
“Baptism is a very ancient rite pertaining to heathen religions, whether of Asia, Africa, Europe or America.” (Bonwick: Egyptian Belief, p. 416.)
“Baptism, or purification by water, was a ceremony common to all religions of antiquity. It consists in being made clean from some supposed pollution or defilement.” (Bell’s Pantheon, vol. ii. p. 201.)
“L’usage de ce Baptéme par immersion, qui subsista dans l’Occident jusqu’ au 8e ciècle, se maintient encore dans l’Eglise Greque: c’est celui que Jean le Précurseur administra, dans le Jourdain, à Jesus Christ même. Il fut pratiqué chez les Juifs, chez les Grecs, et chez presque tous les peuples, bien des siècles avant l’existence de la religion Chrétienne.” (D’Ancarville: Res., vol. i. p. 292.)
[317:2]See Amberly’s Analysis, p. 61. Bunsen’s Angel-Messiah, p. 42. Higgins’ Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 69, and Lillie’s Buddhism, pp. 55 and 184.
[317:3]Lillie’s Buddhism, p. 134.
[318:1]Life and Religion of the Hindus, p. 94.
[318:2]Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 125.
“Every orthodox Hindu is perfectly persuaded that the dirtiest water, if taken from a sacred stream and applied to his body, either externally or internally, will purify his soul.” (Prof. Monier Williams: Hinduism, p. 157.) The Egyptians bathed in the water of the Nile; the Chaldeans and Persians in the Euphrates, and the Hindus, at we have seen, in the Ganges, all of which were considered as “sacred waters” by the different nations. The Jews looked upon the Jordan in the same manner.
Herodotus, speaking of the Persians’ manners, says:
“They (the Persians) neither make water, nor spit, nor wash their hands in a river, nor defile the stream with urine, nor do they allow any one else to do so, but they pay extreme veneration to all rivers.” (Hist. lib. i. ch. 138.)
[318:3]Williams’ Hinduism, p. 176.
[318:4]Hist. Manichee, lib. ix. ch. vi. sect. xvi. in Anac., vol. ii. p. 65. See also, Dupuis: Orig. Relig. Belief, p. 249, and Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 392.
[318:5]“Pro infantibus non utuntur circumcisione, sed tantum baptismo seu lotione ad animæ purificationem internam. Infantem ad sacerdotem in ecclesiam adductum sistunt coram sole et igne, quâ factâ ceremoniâ, eundem sanctiorem existimant. D. Lord dicit quod aquam ad hoc afferunt in cortice arboris Holm: ea autem arbor revers est Haum Magorum, cujus mentionem aliâ occasione supra fecimus. Alias, aliquando fit immergendo in magnum vas aquæ, ut dicit Tavernier. Post talem lotionem seu baptismum, sacerdos imponit nomen à parentibus inditum.” (Hyde de Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 414.) After this Hyde goes on to say, that when he comes to be fifteen years of age he is confirmed by receiving the girdle, and the sudra or cassock.
[319:1]See Knight: Anct. Art and Mytho., p. xxv. Higgins: Anac., vol. i pp. 218 and 222. Dunlap: Mysteries of Adoni, p. 189. King: The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 51.
[319:2]De Præscrip. ch. xi.
[319:3]Ibid.
[319:4]“Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos.”
[319:5]“Semper enim cruci baptismus jungitur.” (Aug. Temp. Ser. ci.)
[319:6]See Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 69, and Monumental Christianity, p. 385.
[319:7]“Sacerdos, stipatum me religiosa cohorte, deducit ad proximas balucas; et prius sueto lavraco traditum, prœfatus deûm veniam, purissimē circumrorans abluit.” (Apuleius: Milesi, ii. citat. a Higgins: Anac., vol. ii. p. 69.)
[320:1]Bonwick: Egyptian Belief, p. 416. Dunlap: Mysteries Adoni, p. 139.
[320:2]Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 392.
[320:3]See Higgins: Anac., vol. ii. pp. 67-69.
[320:4]Barnes: Notes, vol. i. p. 38. Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 65.
[320:5]Barnes: Notes, vol. i. p. 41.
[320:6]See Bunsen’s Angel-Messiah, p. 121, Gainsburgh’s Essenes, and Higgins’ Anacalypsis, vol. ii. pp. 66, 67.
[321:1]Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 391.
[321:2]Holy Water“—water wherein the person is baptized, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Church of England Catechism.)
[321:3]See Taylor’s Diegesis, pp. 333, 334, and Higgins’ Anacalypsis, ii. p. 65.
[321:4]See Taylor‘s Diegesis, pp. 80 and 232, and Baring-Gould’s Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 391.
“De-là-vint, que pour devenir capable d’entendre les secrets de la création, révélés dans ces mêmes mystères, il fallut se faire régénérerpar l’initiation. Cette cérémonie, par laquelle, on apprenoit les vrais principes de la vie, s’opéroit par le moyen de l’eau qui voit été celui de la régénération du monde. On conduisoit sur les bords de l’Ilissus le candidat qui devoit être initié; apres l’avoir purifié avec le sel et l’eau de la mer, on repandoit de l’orge sur lui, on le couronnoit de fleurs, et l’Hydranos ou le Baptisseur le plongeoit dans le fleuve.” (D’Ancarville: Res., vol. i. p. 292. Anac., ii. p. 65.)
[321:5]Taylor‘s Diegesis, p. 232.
[322:1]See Mallet’s Northern Antiquities, pp. 306, 313, 320, 366. Baring-Gould’s Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. pp. 392, 393, and Dupuis, p. 242.
[322:2]Mallet: Northern Antiquities, p. 206.
[322:3]Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 393. Higgins: Anac., vol. ii. p. 67, and Davies: Myths of the British Druids.
[322:4]Sir George Grey: Polynesian Mytho., p. 32, in Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 392.
[322:5]See Viscount Amberly’s Analysis Relig. Belief, p. 59.
[322:6]Vol. i. p. 64.
[323:1]Monumental Christianity, pp. 389, 390.
[323:2]Kingsborough: Mex. Antiq., vol. vi. p. 114.
[323:3]Hist. Indies, vol. ii. p. 369.
[323:4]Ibid. p. 361.
[323:5]Ibid. p. 369.
[323:6]Monumental Christianity, p. 390.
[323:7]Bonwick: Egyptian Belief, p. 416.
[325:1]That man is born in original sin seems to have been the belief of all nations of antiquity, especially the Hindus. This sense of original corruption is expressed in the following prayer, used by them:
“I am sinful, I commit sin, my nature is sinful, I am conceived in sin. Save me, O thou lotus-eyed Heri, the remover of Sin.” (Williams’ Hinduism, p. 214.)
Extract from CHAPTER XXXI, Babtism; “BIBLE MYTHS AND THEIR PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS” By T. W. DOANE,  1882. Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Lisa Reigel, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net  http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31885/31885-h/31885-h.htm#Page_36

Eurchrist or Lord’s Supper

We are informed by the Matthew narrator that when Jesus was eating his last supper with the disciples,

“He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”[305:1]
According to Christian belief, Jesus instituted this “Sacrament[305:2]—as it is called—and it was observed by the primitive Christians, as he had enjoined them; but we shall find that this breaking of bread, and drinking of wine,—supposed to be the body and blood of a god[305:3]—is simply another piece of Paganism imbibed by the Christians.
The Eucharist was instituted many hundreds of years before the time assigned for the birth of Christ Jesus. Cicero, the greatest orator of Rome, and one of the most illustrious of her statesmen, born in the year 106 B. C., mentions it in his works, and wonders at the strangeness of the rite. “How can a man be so stupid,” says he, “as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?” There had been an esoteric meaning attached to it from the first establishment of themysteries among the Pagans, and the Eucharistia is one of the oldest rites of antiquity.
The adherents of the Grand Lama in Thibet and Tartary offer to their god a sacrament of bread and wine.[305:4]
P. Andrada La Crozius, a French missionary, and one of the first Christians who went to Nepaul and Thibet, says in his “History of India:”
“Their Grand Lama celebrates a species of sacrifice with bread and wine, in which, after taking a small quantity himself, he distributes the rest among the Lamas present at this ceremony.”[306:1]
In certain rites both in the Indian and the Parsee religions, the devotees drink the juice of the Soma, or Haoma plant. They consider it a god as well as a plant, just as the wine of the Christian sacrament is considered both the juice of the grape, and the blood of the Redeemer.[306:2] Says Mr. Baring-Gould:
“Among the ancient Hindoos, Soma was a chief deity; he is called ‘the Giver of Life and of health,’ the ‘Protector,’ he who is ‘the Guide to Immortality.’ He became incarnate among men, was taken by them and slain, and brayed in a mortar. But he rose in flame to heaven, to be the ‘Benefactor of the World,’ and the ‘Mediator between God and Man.‘ Through communion with him in his sacrifice, man, (who partook of this god), has an assurance of immortality, for by that sacrament he obtains union with his divinity.”[306:3]
The ancient Egyptians—as we have seen—annually celebrated the Resurrection of their God and Saviour Osiris, at which time they commemorated his death by the Eucharist, eating the sacred cake, or wafer, after it had been consecrated by the priest, and become veritable flesh of his flesh.[306:4] The bread, after sacerdotal rites, became mystically the body of Osiris, and, in such a manner, they ate their god.[306:5] Bread and wine were brought to the temples by the worshipers, as offerings.[306:6]
The Therapeutes or Essenes, whom we believe to be of Buddhist origin, and who lived in large numbers in Egypt, also had the ceremony of the sacrament among them.[306:7] Most of them, however, being temperate, substituted water for wine, while others drank a mixture of water and wine.
Pythagoras, the celebrated Grecian philosopher, who was born about the year 570 B. C., performed this ceremony of the sacrament.[306:8] He is supposed to have visited Egypt, and there availed himself of all such mysterious lore as the priests could be induced to impart. He and his followers practiced asceticism, and peculiarities of diet and clothing, similar to the Essenes, which has led some scholars to believe that he instituted the order, but this is evidently not the case.
The Kenite “King of Righteousness,” Melchizedek, “a priest of the Most High God,” brought out BREAD and WINE as a sign or symbol of worship; as the mystic elements of Divine presence. In the visible symbol of bread and wine they worshiped the invisible presence of the Creator of heaven and earth.[307:1]
To account for this, Christian divines have been much puzzled. The Rev. Dr. Milner says, in speaking of this passage:
“It was in offering up a sacrifice of bread and wine, instead of slaughtered animals, that Melchizedek’s sacrifice differed from the generality of those in the old law, and that he prefigured the sacrifice which Christ was to institute in the new law from the same elements. No other sense than this can be elicited from the Scripture as to this matter; and accordingly the holy fathers unanimously adhere to this meaning.”[307:2]
This style of reasoning is in accord with the TYPE theory concerning the Virgin-born, Crucified and Resurrected Saviours, but it is not altogether satisfactory. If it had been said that the religion of Melchizedek, and the religion of the Persians, were the same, there would be no difficulty in explaining the passage.
Not only were bread and wine brought forth by Melchizedek when he blessed Abraham, but it was offered to God and eaten before him by Jethro and the elders of Israel, and some, at least, of the mourning Israelites broke bread and drank “the cup of consolation,” in remembrance of the departed, “to comfort them for the dead.”[307:3]
It is in the ancient religion of Persia—the religion of Mithra, the Mediator, the Redeemer and Saviour—that we find the nearest resemblance to the sacrament of the Christians, and from which it was evidently borrowed. Those who were initiated into the mysteries of Mithra, or became members, took the sacrament of bread and wine.[307:4]
M. Renan, speaking of Mithraicism, says:
“It had its mysterious meetings: its chapels, which bore a strong resemblance to little churches. It forged a very lasting bond of brotherhood between its initiates: it had a Eucharist, a Supper so like the Christian Mysteries, that good Justin Martyr, the Apologist, can find only one explanation of the apparent identity, namely, that Satan, in order to deceive the human race, determined to imitate the Christian ceremonies, and so stole them.”[307:5]
The words of St. Justin, wherein he alludes to this ceremony, are as follows:
“The apostles, in the commentaries written by themselves, which we call Gospels, have delivered down to us how that Jesus thus commanded them: He having taken bread, after he had given thanks,[308:1] said, Do this in commemoration of me; this is my body. And having taken a cup, and returned thanks, he said: This is my blood, and delivered it to them alone. Which thing indeed the evil spirits have taught to be done out of mimicry in the Mysteries and Initiatory rites of Mithra.
“For you either know, or can know, that bread and a cup of water (or wine) are given out, with certain incantations, in the consecration of the person who is being initiated in the Mysteries of Mithra.”[308:2]
This food they called the Eucharist, of which no one was allowed to partake but the persons who believed that the things they taught were true, and who had been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sin.[308:3] Tertullian, who flourished from 193 to 220 A. D., also speaks of the Mithraic devotees celebrating the Eucharist.[308:4]
The Eucharist of the Lord and Saviour, as the Magi called Mithra, the second person in their Trinity, or their Eucharistic sacrifice, was always made exactly and in every respect the same as that of the orthodox Christians, for both sometimes used water instead of wine, or a mixture of the two.[308:5]
The Christian Fathers often liken their rites to those of the Therapeuts (Essenes) and worshipers of Mithra. Here is Justin Martyr’s account of Christian initiation:
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and assented to our teachings, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and the illuminatedperson. Having ended our prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water. When the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those that are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water.”[308:6]
In the service of Edward the Sixth of England, water is directed to be mixed with the wine.[309:1] This is a union of the two; not a half measure, but a double one. If it be correct to take it with wine, then they were right; if with water, they still were right; as they took both, they could not be wrong.
The bread, used in these Pagan Mysteries, was carried in baskets, which practice was also adopted by the Christians. St. Jerome, speaking of it, says:
“Nothing can be richer than one who carries the body of Christ (viz.: the bread) in a basket made of twigs.”[309:2]
The Persian Magi introduced the worship of Mithra into Rome, and his mysteries were solemnized in a cave. In the process of initiation there, candidates were also administered the sacrament of bread and wine, and were marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross.[309:3]
The ancient Greeks also had their “Mysteries,” wherein they celebrated the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The Rev. Robert Taylor, speaking of this, says:
“The Eleusinian Mysteries, or, Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was the most august of all the Pagan ceremonies celebrated, more especially by the Athenians, every fifth year,[309:4] in honor of Ceres, the goddess of corn, who, in allegorical language, had given us her flesh to eat; as Bacchus, the god of wine, in like sense, had given us his blood to drink. . . .
“From these ceremonies is derived the very name attached to our Christian sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,—’those holy Mysteries;’—and not one or two, but absolutely all and every one of the observances used in our Christian solemnity. Very many of our forms of expression in that solemnity are precisely the same as those that appertained to the Pagan rite.”[309:5]
Prodicus (a Greek sophist of the 5th century B. C.) says that, the ancients worshiped bread as Demeter (Ceres) and wine as Dionysos (Bacchus);[309:6]therefore, when they ate the bread, and drank the wine, after it had been consecrated, they were doing as the Romanists claim to do at the present day, i. e.,eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their god.[309:7]
Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, acknowledges that:
“The profound respect that was paid to the Greek and Roman Mysteries, and the extraordinary sanctity that was attributed to them, induced the Christians of the second century, to give their religion a mystic air, in order to put it upon an equal footing in point of dignity, with that of the Pagans. For this purpose they gave the name of Mysteries to the institutions of the Gospels, and decorated particularly the ‘Holy Sacrament’ with that title; they used the very terms employed in the Heathen Mysteries, and adopted some of the rites and ceremonies of which those renowned mysteries consisted. This imitation began in the eastern provinces; but, after the time of Adrian, who first introduced the mysteries among the Latins, it was followed by the Christians who dwelt in the western part of the empire. A great part, therefore, of the service of the Church in this—the second—century, had a certain air of the Heathen Mysteries, and resembled them considerably in many particulars.”[310:1]


Eleusinian Mysteries and Christian Sacraments Compared

1. “But as the benefit of Initiation was great, such as were convicted of witchcraft, murder, even though unintentional, or any other heinous crimes, were debarred from those mysteries.”[310:2]
1. “For as the benefit is great, if, with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy sacrament, &c., if any be an open and notorious evil-liver, or hath done wrong to his neighbor, &c., that he presume not to come to the Lord’s table.”[310:3]
2. “At their entrance, purifying themselves, by washing their hands in holy water, they were at the same time admonished to present themselves with pure minds, without which the external cleanness of the body would by no means be accepted.”[310:4]
2. See the fonts of holy water at the entrance of every Catholic chapel in Christendom for the same purpose.

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”[310:5]

3. “The priests who officiated in these sacred solemnities, were called Hierophants, or ‘revealers of holy things.'”[310:6]
3. The priests who officiate at these Christian solemnities are supposed to be ‘revealers of holy things.’
4. The Pagan Priest dismissed their congregation with these words:
The Lord be with you.[310:7]
4. The Christian priests dismiss their congregation with these words:
The Lord be with you.
These Eleusinian Mysteries were accompanied with various rites, expressive of the purity and self-denial of the worshiper, and were therefore considered to be an expiation of past sins, and to place the initiated under the special protection of the awful and potent goddess who presided over them.[310:8]
These mysteries were, as we have said, also celebrated in honor of Bacchus as well as Ceres. A consecrated cup of wine was handed around after supper, called the “Cup of the Agathodaemon”—the Good Divinity.[311:1] Throughout the whole ceremony, the name of the Lord was many times repeated, and his brightness or glory not only exhibited to the eye by the rays which surrounded his name (or his monogram, I. H. S.), but was made the peculiar theme or subject of their triumphant exultation.[311:2]
The mystical wine and bread were used during the Mysteries of Adonis, the Lord and Saviour.[311:3] In fact, the communion of bread and wine was used in the worship of nearly every important deity.[311:4]
The rites of Bacchus were celebrated in the British Islands in heathen times,[311:5] and so were those of Mithra, which were spread over Gaul and Great Britain.[311:6] We therefore find that the ancient Druids offered the sacrament of bread and wine, during which ceremony they were dressed in white robes,[311:7] just as the Egyptian priests of Isis were in the habit of dressing, and as the priests of many Christian sects dress at the present day.
Among some negro tribes in Africa there is a belief that “on eating and drinking consecrated food they eat and drink the god himself.”[311:8]
The ancient Mexicans celebrated the mysterious sacrament of the Eucharist, called the “most holy supper,” during which they ate the flesh of their god. The bread used at their Eucharist was made of corn meal, which they mixed with blood, instead of wine. This was consecrated by the priest, and given to the people, who ate it with humility and penitence, as the flesh of their god.[311:9]
Lord Kingsborough, in his “Mexican Antiquities,” speaks of the ancient Mexicans as performing this sacrament; when they made a cake, which they calledTzoalia. The high priest blessed it in his manner, after which he broke it into pieces, and put it into certain very clean vessels. He then took a thorn ofmaguery, which resembles a thick needle, with which he took up with the utmost reverence single morsels, which he put into the mouth of each individual, after the manner of a communion.[311:10]
The writer of the “Explanation of Plates of the Codex Vaticanus,”—which are copies of Mexican hieroglyphics—says:
“I am disposed to believe that these poor people have had the knowledge of our mode of communion, or of the annunciation of the gospel; or perhaps the devil, most envious of the honor of God, may have led them into this superstition, in order that by this ceremony he might be adored and served as Christ our Lord.”[312:1]
The Rev. Father Acosta says:
“That which is most admirable in the hatred and presumption of Satan is, that he hath not only counterfeited in idolatry and sacrifice, but also in certain ceremonies, our Sacraments, which Jesus Christ our Lord hath instituted and the holy Church doth use, having especially pretended to imitate in some sort the Sacrament of the Communion, which is the most high and divine of all others.”
He then relates how the Mexicans and Peruvians, in certain ceremonies, ate the flesh of their god, and called certain morsels of paste, “the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuzlti.”
“After putting themselves in order about these morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing, by means whereof they (the pieces of paste) were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol.”[312:2]
These facts show that the Eucharist is another piece of Paganism adopted by the Christians. The story of Jesus and his disciples being at supper, where the Master did break bread, may be true, but the statement that he said, “Do this in remembrance of me,”—”this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” was undoubtedly invented to give authority to the mystic ceremony, which had been borrowed from Paganism.
Why should they do this in remembrance of Jesus? Provided he took this supper with his disciples—which the John narrator denies[312:3]—he did not do anything on that occasion new or unusual among Jews. To pronounce the benediction, break the bread, and distribute pieces thereof to the persons at table, was, and is now, a common usage of the Hebrews. Jesus could not have commanded born Jews to do in remembrance of him what they already practiced, and what every religious Jew does to this day. The whole story is evidently a myth, as a perusal of it with the eye of a critic clearly demonstrates.
The Mark narrator informs us that Jesus sent two of his disciples to the city, and told them this:
“Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.”[313:1]
The story of the passover or the last supper, seems to be introduced in this unusual manner to make it manifest that a divine power is interested in, and conducting the whole affair, parallels of which we find in the story of Elieser and Rebecca, where Rebecca is to identify herself in a manner pre-arranged by Elieser with God;[313:2] and also in the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath, where by God’s directions a journey is made, and the widow is found.[313:3]
It suggests itself to our mind that this style of connecting a supernatural interest with human affairs was not entirely original with the Mark narrator. In this connection it is interesting to note that a man in Jerusalem should have had an unoccupied and properly furnished room just at that time, when two millions of pilgrims sojourned in and around the city. The man, it appears, was not distinguished either for wealth or piety, for his name is not mentioned; he was not present at the supper, and no further reference is made to him. It appears rather that the Mark narrator imagined an ordinary man who had a furnished room to let for such purposes, and would imply that Jesus knew it prophetically. He had only to pass in his mind from Elijah to his disciple Elisha, for whom the great woman of Shunem had so richly furnished an upper chamber, to find a like instance.[313:4] Why should not somebody have furnished also an upper chamber for the Messiah?
The Matthew narrator’s account is free from these embellishments, and simply runs thus: Jesus said to some of his disciples—the number is not given—
“Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.”[313:5]
In this account, no pitcher, no water, no prophecy is mentioned.[313:6]
It was many centuries before the genuine heathen doctrine of Transubstantiation—a change of the elements of the Eucharist into the real body and blood of Christ Jesus—became a tenet of the Christian faith. This greatest of mysteries was developed gradually. As early as the second century, however, the seeds were planted, when we find Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus advancing the opinion, that the mere bread and wine became, in the Eucharist, something higher—the earthly, something heavenly—without, however, ceasing to be bread and wine. Though these views were opposed by some eminent individual Christian teachers, yet both among the people and in the ritual of the Church, the miraculous or supernatural view of the Lord’s Supper gained ground. After the third century the office of presenting the bread and wine came to be confined to the ministers or priests. This practice arose from, and in turn strengthened, the notion which was gaining ground, that in this act of presentation by the priest, a sacrifice, similar to that once offered up in the death of Christ Jesus, though bloodless, was ever anew presented to God. This still deepened the feeling of mysterious significance and importance with which the rite of the Lord’s Supper was viewed, and led to that gradually increasing splendor of celebration which took the form of the Mass. As in Christ Jesus two distinct natures, the divine and the human, were wonderfully combined, so in the Eucharist there was a corresponding union of the earthly and the heavenly.
For a long time there was no formal declaration of the mind of the Church on the real presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. At length a discussion on the point was raised, and the most distinguished men of the time took part in it. One party maintained that “the bread and wine are, in the act of consecration, transformed by the omnipotence of God into the very body of Christ which was once born of Mary, nailed to the cross, and raised from the dead.” According to this conception, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the outward form, the taste and the smell; while the other party would only allow that there issome change in the bread and wine themselves, but granted that an actual transformation of their power and efficacy takes place.
The greater accordance of the first view with the credulity of the age, its love for the wonderful and magical, the interest of the priesthood to add lustre, in accordance with the heathens, to a rite which enhanced their own office, resulted in the doctrine of Transubstantiation being declared an article of faith of the Christian Church.
Transubstantiation, the invisible change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is a tenet that may defy the powers of argument and pleasantry; but instead of consulting the evidence of their senses, of their sight, their feeling, and their taste, the first Protestants were entangled in their own scruples, and awed by the reputed words of Jesus in the institution of the sacrament. Luther maintained a corporeal, and Calvin a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and the opinion of Zuinglius, that it is no more than a spiritual communion, a simple memorial, has slowly prevailed in the reformed churches.[315:1]
Under Edward VI. the reformation was more bold and perfect, but in the fundamental articles of the Church of England, a strong and explicit declaration against the real presence was obliterated in the original copy, to please the people, or the Lutherans, or Queen Elizabeth. At the present day, the Greek and Roman Catholics alone hold to the original doctrine of the real presence.
Of all the religious observances among heathens, Jews, or Turks, none has been the cause of more hatred, persecution, outrage, and bloodshed, than the Eucharist. Christians persecuted one another like relentless foes, and thousands of Jews were slaughtered on account of the Eucharist and the Host.


FOOTNOTES:
[305:1]Matt. xxvi. 26. See also, Mark, xiv. 22.
[305:2]At the heading of the chapters named in the above note may be seen the words: “Jesus keepeth the Passover (and) instituteth the Lord’s Supper.”
[305:3]According to the Roman Christians, the Eucharist is the natural body and blood of Christ Jesus verè et realiter, but the Protestant sophistically explains away these two plain words verily and indeed, and by the grossest abuse of language, makes them to meanspiritually by grace and efficacy. “In the sacrament of the altar,” says the Protestant divine, “is the natural body and blood of Christ verè et realiter, verily and indeed, if you take these terms for spiritually by grace and efficacy; but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and movable body under the form of bread and wine, then in that sense it is not Christ’s body in the sacrament really and indeed.”
[305:4]See Inman’s Ancient Faiths, vol. ii. p. 203, and Anacalypsis, i. 232.
[306:1]“Leur grand Lama célèbre une espèce de sacrifice avec du pain et du vin dont il prend une petite quantité, et distribue le reste aux Lamas presens à cette cérémonie.” (Quoted in Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 118.)
[306:2]Viscount Amberly’s Analysis, p. 46.
[306:3]Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 401.
[306:4]See Bonwick’s Egyptian Belief, p. 163.
[306:5]See Ibid. p. 417.
[306:6]See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 179.
[306:7]See Bunsen’s Keys of St. Peter, p. 199; Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 60, and Lillie’s Buddhism, p. 136.
[306:8]See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 60.
[307:1]See Bunsen’s Keys of St. Peter, p. 55, and Genesis, xiv. 18, 19.
[307:2]St. Jerome says: “Melchizédek in typo Christi panem et vinum obtulit: et mysterium Christianum in Salvatoris sanguine et corpore dedicavit.”
[307:3]See Bunsen’s Angel-Messiah, p. 227.
[307:4]See King’s Gnostics and their Remains, p. xxv., and Higgins’ Anacalypsis, vol. ii. pp. 58, 59.
[307:5]Renan’s Hibbert Lectures, p. 35.
[308:1]In the words of Mr. King: “This expression shows that the notion of blessing or consecrating the elements was as yet unknown to the Christians.”
[308:2]Apol. 1. ch. lxvi.
[308:3]Ibid.
[308:4]De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, ch. xl. Tertullian explains this conformity between Christianity and Paganism, by asserting that the devil copied the Christian mysteries.
[308:5]“De Tinctione, de oblatione panis, et de imagine resurrectionis, videatur doctiss, de la Cerda ad ea Tertulliani loca ubi de hiscerebus agitur. Gentiles citra Christum, talia celébradant Mithriaca quæ videbantur cum doctrinâ eucharistæ et resurrectionis et aliis ritibus Christianis convenire, quæ fecerunt ex industria ad imitationem Christianismi: unde Tertulliani et Patres aiunt eos talia fecisse, duce diabolo, quo vult esse simia Christi, &c. Volunt itaque eos res suas ita compârasse, ut Mithræ mysteria essent eucharistiæ Christianæ imago. Sic Just. Martyr (p. 98), et Tertullianus et Chrysostomus. In suis etiam sacris habebant Mithriaci lavacra (quasi regenerationis) in quibus tingit et ipse (sc. sacerdos) quosdam utique credentes et fideles suos, et expiatoria delictorum de lavacro repromittit et sic adhuc initiat Mithræ.” (Hyde: De Relig. Vet. Persian, p. 113.)
[308:6]Justin: 1st Apol., ch. lvi.
[309:1]Dr. Grabes’ Notes on Irenæus, lib. v. c. 2, in Anac., vol. i. p. 60.
[309:2]Quoted in Monumental Christianity, p. 370.
[309:3]See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 369.
“The Divine Presence called his angel of mercy and said unto him: ‘Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark of Tau (Τ, the headless cross) upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof.'” Bunsen: The Angel-Messiah, p. 305.
[309:4]They were celebrated every fifth year at Eleusis, a town of Attica, from whence their name.
[309:5]Taylor‘s Diegesis, p. 212.
[309:6]Müller: Origin of Religion, p. 181.
[309:7]“In the Bacchic Mysteries a consecrated cup (of wine) was handed around after supper, called the cup of the Agathodaemon.” (Cousin: Lec. on Modn. Phil. Quoted in Isis Unveiled, ii. 513. See also, Dunlap’s Spirit Hist., p. 217.)
[310:1]Eccl. Hist. cent. ii. pt. 2, sec. v.
[310:2]Bell‘s Pantheon, vol. i. p. 282.
[310:3]Episcopal Communion Service.
[310:4]Bell‘s Pantheon, vol. i. p. 282.
[310:5]Hebrews, x. 22.
[310:6]See Taylor‘s Diegesis, p. 213.
[310:7]See Ibid.
[310:8]Kenrick’s Egypt, vol. i. p. 471.
[311:1]See Dunlap’s Spirit Hist., p. 217, and Isis Unveiled, vol. ii. p. 513.
[311:2]See Taylor‘s Diegesis, p. 214.
[311:3]See Isis Unveiled, vol. ii. p. 139.
[311:4]See Ibid. p. 513.
[311:5]See Myths of the British Druids, p. 89.
[311:6]See Dupuis: Origin of Relig. Belief, p. 238.
[311:7]See Myths of the British Druids, p. 280, and Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 376.
[311:8]Herbert Spencer: Principles of Sociology, vol. i. p. 299.
[311:9]See Monumental Christianity, pp. 390 and 393.
[311:10]Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 220.
[312:1]Quoted In Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 221.
[312:2]Acosta: Hist. Indies, vol. ii. chs. xiii. and xiv.
[312:3]According to the “John” narrator, Jesus ate no Paschal meal, but was captured the evening before Passover, and was crucified before the feast opened. According to the Synoptics, Jesus partook of the Paschal supper, was captured the first night of the feast, and executed on the first day thereof, which was on a Friday. If the John narrator’s account is true, that of the Synoptics is not, or vice versa.
[313:1]Mark, xiv. 13-16.
[313:2]Gen. xxiv.
[313:3]I. Kings, xvii. 8.
[313:4]II. Kings, iv. 8.
[313:5]Matt. xxvi. 18, 19.
[313:6]For further observations on this subject, see Dr. Isaac M. Wise’s “Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth,” a valuable little work, published at the office of the American Israelite, Cincinnati, Ohio.
[315:1]See Gibbon’s Rome, vol. v. pp. 399, 400. Calvin, after quoting Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, says: “There is no doubt that as soon as these words are added to the bread and the wine, the bread and the wine become the true body and the true blood of Christ, so that the substance of bread and wine is transmuted into the true body and blood of Christ. He who denies this calls the omnipotence of Christ in question, and charges Christ himself with foolishness.” (Calvin’s Tracts, p. 214. Translated by Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh, 1851.) In other parts of his writings, Calvin seems to contradict this statement, and speaks of the bread and wine in the Eucharist as being symbolical. Gibbon evidently refers to the passage quoted above.
Extract from CHAPTER XXX, Eurchrist or  Lord’s Supper “BIBLE MYTHS AND THEIR PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS” By T. W. DOANE,  1882. Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Lisa Reigel, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net  http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31885/31885-h/31885-h.htm#Page_36

Bible: Myths, Contradictions, inconsistencies and More ..

Quotes from “Bible: Myths and their Parallels in other religion” by TW Doane:


All the earliest external evidences points to the conclusion that thy synoptic gospels are non-apostolic digesis of spoken and written apostolic tradition, and that the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took place only gradually and by many essays.
— T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)

Dr. Lardner says: “Even so late as the middle of the sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged, but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine according to evidences.”
— T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)

Dr. Hooykaas, speaking of the four “Gospels,” and “Acts,” says of them: “Not one of these five books was written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose.”
— T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)

Though Irenaeus, in the second century, is the first who mentions the evangelists, and Origen, in the third century, is the first who gives us a catalogue of the books contained in the New Testament, Mosheim’s admission still stands before us. We have no grounds of assurance that the mere mention of the names of the evangelists by Irenaeus, or the arbitrary drawing up of a particular catalogue by Origen, were of any authority. It is still unknown by whom, or where, or when, the canon of the New Testament was settled. But in this absence of positive evidence we have abundance of negative proof. We know when it was not settled. We know it was not settled in the time of Emperor Justinian, nor in the time of Cassiodorus; that is, not at any time before the middle of the sixth century, “by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged; but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical.”
— T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)

The biographers of Jesus, although they have placed him in a position the most humiliating in his infancy, and although they have given him poor and humble parents, have notwithstanding made him to be of royal descent. The reasons for doing this were twofold. First, because, according to the Old Testament, the expected Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham, and second, because the Angel-Messiahs who had previously been on earth to redeem and save mankind had been of royal descent, therefore Christ Jesus must be so.
     The following story, taken from Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, clearly shows that this idea was general:
     “The last of the Jinas, Vardhaman, was at first conceived by Devananda, a Brahmana. The conception was announced to her by a dream. Sekra, being apprised of his incarnation, prostrated himself and worshiped the future saint (who was in the womb of Devananda); but reflecting that no great saint was ever born in an indigent or mendicant family, as that of a Brahmana, Sekra commanded his chief attendant to remove the child from the womb of Devanda to that of Trissla, wife of Siddhartha, a prince of the race of Jensaca, of the Kayapa family.”
     In their attempts to accomplish their object, the biographers of Jesus have made such poor work of it, that all the ingenuity Christianity has yet produced, has not been able to repair their blunders.
     The genealogies are contained in the first and third Gospels, and although they do not agree, yet, if either is right, then Jesus was not the son of God, engendered by the “Holy Ghost,” but the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. In any other sense they amount to nothing. That Jesus can be of royal descent, and yet be the son of God, in the sense in which these words are used, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to those only who believe in alleged historical narratives on no other ground than that they wish them to be true, and dare not call them into question.
— T W Doane, Chapter XVII, “The Genealogy of Christ Jesus,” Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)


Bible Difficulties : Resurrection – Miracles, Myths, or Mysteries ?

Notice carefully what were happening outside and inside the sepulchre.

== Matt 28:2 … a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended … rolled back the stone …
== Matt 28:4 And for fear of him the KEEPERS did shake, and became as dead men.
== Matt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye:
== Matt 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy;…
== Matt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples,

== Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: …
== Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man …
== Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
== Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, … neither said they any thing to any man;…

== Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
== Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
== Luke 24:4 … they were much perplexed … behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
== Luke 24:9 And returned … and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

== John 20:1 … cometh Mary Magdalene early, … and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
== John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,

= Matthew has earthquake, keepers of the sepulchre and the Angel outside rolling open the sepulchre for the women. The women return to tell the disciples what they encountered.
= Mark has the sepulchre already opened and the women saw the young man inside it.
The woman DID NOT tell anyone.
= Luke has the sepulchre already opened, the women saw nothing then suddenly, 2 Angels appeared. They told the 11 disciples and “all the rest”.
= John is simple – Only Mary came, saw that the sepulchre was opened and immediately returned to tell Peter the “the loved disciple”

1) Why were there so many discrepancies of what happened before the women/Magdalene went into the sepulchree and when inside it?
2) Exactly, who or how many disciples were told of the strange events in the sepulchre? None, two, 11 or many disciples and followers?


Problems with Christianity

Former Christian and Historian says "JESUS never wanted people to worship him"




Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ – Biblical Arguments Refuted

Identification of True God is the first and the most important issue confronted by every human being. Any wrong decision is going to keep us in hell for ever. While we go to market for purchasing items we need, we are very choosy. Survey is carried out, reliability of products is established, then purchase is made we do not trust heresy and use our intellect to the best. Unfortunately this aspect is ignored in case of God. We tend to follow what we have been hearing since our childhood. One must read the Bible with open mind, there are clear verses without any ambiguity on oneness of  God, monotheism in Old Testament and New Testament. People leave these clear verses and try to extract desired meanings for some ambiguous verses which are twisted. It is against common-sense and logic to identify God in such dubious way. Let’s keep in mind that:-

  • In the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.
  • There are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.
  • There are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.
  • There are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.
  • Of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.
  • The passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

In a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support after twisting and manipulation.

Here effort has been made to present the true picture about ambiguity of dubious claims to consider  Jesus Christ as deity while totally ignoring clear verses on One Single God. Please spare time to think  and ponder, you are answerable to God to identify Him as He is, as He wants you to do. While praying to God to open your mind to the Truth, use your intellect sincerely to discern truth from falsehood.

[Also see: True Message of Jesus Christ and Perversion by Paul ]
[Videos: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x2pmph_Peace-Forum_christianity-appraisal/1#video=x115iv1]

“And he [Jesus] said also to the multitudes: When you see a cloud rising from the west, presently you say: A shower is coming. And so it happeneth. And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will heat. And it cometh to pass.  You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?”[Luke;12:54-56:]

Bible Rejects Deity of Christ:

Let us see some interesting quotes from the Bible that actually rejects the Deity of Christ and shows that Jesus is inferior to the Father. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21) “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, bore witness of Me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37) “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18) “And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.” (John 8:50) “ Jesus answered them and said, “my doctrine are not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16) “he who does not love me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24) “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49) “Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34) “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent me” (John 6:38) “saying, ‘Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42) “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30) “I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16) “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) “Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me” (John 8:42) “To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23) “So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (John 7:16)

For more verses on Oneness of God:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/is-jesus-god
http://www.drazin.com/chap4.phtml 
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4DDEA7356F49C53D
http://www.youtube.com/p/4DDEA7356F49C53D?version=3&hl=en_GB&fs=1
Common Verses quoted to suport Trinity-Explained:  http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses

Trinity

It is defined in Catholic Encyclopaedia as: “The three Persons (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are Co-Equal and Co-Eternal: all alike are Uncreated and Omnipotent (supreme).”There is no clear verse in the bible which support the doctrine of ‘Trinity’, except 1John; 5:7,8; “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” (in some volumes this changed as : “There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree”. In the foot not of this verse in ‘New International Version Bible’ it is written; ‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteen century. Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.’s in a footnote to this verse opine: “It is generally agreed that this verse has no manuscript authority and has been inserted.”The fundamentalist Christians still retain this fabrication whereas; in all the modern translations including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) this pious deceit has been unceremoniously expunged.
The other verses from Bible, which have been interpreted by the Catholic and Protestant Churches to support the Divinity of Jesus Christ are vague. Critical analysis of these verses, reveals that, either their wordings are ambiguous, leaving them open to a number of different interpretations, or they are later additions not found in the early manuscripts of the Bible.  The most commonly quoted arguments are being examined here.

Analysis of Trinity by Christian Scholar

Dr. Brown  gives  the top 10 reason why the Trinity is not and was not a teaching of any of the prophets not even Jesus himself taught the trinity and he will prove that it is not valid doctrine.
Is the Trinity in Genesis?

Most Christians believe in the church doctrine of the Trinity, that God is one essence consisting of three co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Many cite three passages in the book of Genesis as their primary Old Testament (OT) support for the Trinity: Genesis 1.26; 3.22; 11.7. And they often refer to them when asserting that Jesus preexisted. These texts are as follows:
1.26 “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness’”
3.22 “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil’”
11.7 “And the LORD said,… ‘Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language’”
In all three instances God is the speaker, whom Christians view as God the Father. But none of these narratives identify the “Us.” Many Trinitarians have claimed the “Us” are the other two members of the Trinity: the preexistent Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The four primary interpretations of the words “us” and “our” in Genesis 1.26 are as follows:
(1) most Jews have interpreted them as God’s communication to a special group of angels who gather around God’s heavenly throne and constitute his royal court or council;
(2) post-Nicene church fathers understood God the Father to be speaking to the other two members of the Trinity;
(3) many commentators have regarded these words as a plural of majesty, which allows for Trinitarian belief but does not necessitate it;
(4) God’s addresses himself. How one interprets this text usually determines how one treats the others, so that all three passages are interpreted the same.
The “Us” in Genesis 1.26 cannot be the supposed other two members of the Trinity because it says God made man in his image. If God is a Trinity of Persons, then man, being made in God’s image, would have to be tri-personal as well. Since man is a uni- personal being, God must be a uni-personal being. The closest man ever comes to being tri-personal is schizophrenia, a mental disorder which does not reflect God.
The word translated “God” in the Hebrew Bible is elohim, the plural of eloah. Elohim is often shortened to the proper name El. Elohim occurs about 2,570 times in the OT, either as a common noun or as a divine name. Most past Trinitarians insisted that elohim, being plural, indicates that God subsists as a plurality of persons.
Jewish and many contemporary Christian scholars disagree. They contend the plural word elohim merely indicates intensity, expressing the dignity or greatness of God. Jack B. Scott says most scholars insist that this “plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.” Then he cites antiquities authority William F. Albright, who claims that this plural of majesty was used commonly in the ancient Near East to express the “totality of manifestations of a deity.” Trinitarian F.F. Bruce says elohim is “a plural denoting God as including within Himself all the powers of deity.”
Besides, how could the most frequent word for God (except YHWH) in the Hebrew Bible accommodate a Gentile notion that God is three persons? That contradicts strict monotheism. And it seems presumptuous of Gentiles to tell Jews what Hebrew words mean. Few church fathers knew Hebrew, and their theology suffered from it.
Scripture attests that the Most High God meets regularly with a court of angelic advisors. The psalmist tells of “the assembly of the holy ones,” describing Yahweh as “a God greatly feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all those who are around Him” (Ps 89.5, 7). Job twice says of some angels, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD” to give an account of their activities (Job 1.6; 2.1). This hierarchy of delegated responsibility is like human government.
Since God regularly appoints angels to accomplish his will, perhaps he also involved them in creation. The Jewish Talmud states concerning God, “the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing without consulting his heavenly court.” And the famed Sir Isaac Newton explained, “God does nothing by himself which he can do by another.”
Donald Gowan similarly remarks concerning Genesis 1.26 and 3.22:
There is no support in the OT for most of the proposed explanations: the royal “we,” the deliberative “we,” the plural of fullness, or an indication of a plurality of persons in the Godhead…. The only theory that uses the language of the OT itself is that which claims God is here addressing the heavenly court, as in Isa 6:8. That God was believed to consult with spiritual creatures in heaven is revealed by the scenes described in 1 Kgs. 22:19-22 and Job 1:6–2:6. Hence the consultative “we” has support from other texts, and it fits both the Gen. 1:26-27 and 3:22 on the assumption that Israel believed there were creatures in the heavenly realm (“the host of heaven,” 1 Kgs. 22:19) whose identity had something in common both with God and with human beings. The familiar objection that angels could not have participated in creation is a theological judgment about what is possible in heaven.
So, those to whom God spoke the words “us” and “our”—in Genesis 1.26, 3.22, and 11.2—probably were a special class of angels. Perhaps they were members of his royal council or “the seven spirits of God,” that is, “the seven angels who stand before God” (Revelation 1.4; 8.2), who probably are seven archangels. Regardless, the book of Genesis has no substantial evidence that they were two members of a supposed Trinity. Trinitarian Murray Harris states, “It would be inappropriate for elohim [God] or yhwh [Yahweh] ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT theos regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity.”
Note: This article is authored by Servetus the Evangelical, a.k.a. Kermit Zarley. Visit his website ServetusTheEvangelical.com to read fifty such articles. They represent condensations of his well-researched, biblically in-depth, 600-page book entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008).
Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/faq/is-the-trinity-in-genesis
Three Visitors to Abraham:
IN Genesis 18 Three Visitors come to Abraham and are received in unison , called Lord and bowed to, and the three Visitors answer Abraham twice in Unison and there is not one of the visitors, surpassing the other two to step out and answer Abraham, who called out “Lord” . So this revelation of Moses’ Law is about how God is One Being, but able to be Three Persons, without Material Rational doubts about it. God is able to be all the angels, spirits , powers, principalities and be One.

Appearance of God in three persons simultaneously in Genesis 18 is not proved even in the same chapter. The three visitors to Abraham are considered to be angels by many commentators of Bible,[Geneva Bible Footnotes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary]. Angels may be representatives of God. השתחיה vaystachu “bow,” or bend the body in token of respect to God or man. O Lord. – Abraham uses the word אדני ‘adonay denoting one having authority, whether divine or not. Abraham is accustomed to the divine presence, and it is quickly felt by him; God appears to Abram in a vision, and gives him great encouragement, Ge 15:1, hence three angels are not God, but God communicating with Abraham in presence of three angels. Abraham addresses himself first to one person Ge 18:3, then to more than one Ge 18:4-5. It is stated that “‘they’ said, So do Ge 18:5, ‘they’ did eat Ge 18:8, ‘ they’ said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife” Ge 18:9. Then the singular number is resumed in the phrase “‘and he said'” Ge 18:10, and at length, “The Lord said unto Abraham” Ge 18:13, and then, “and he said” Ge 18:15. Then we are told “‘the men’ rose up, and Abraham went with them” Ge 18:16. Then we have “The Lord said” twice Ge 18:17, Ge 18:20. And lastly, it is said Ge 18:22 “‘the men’ turned their faces and went toward Sodom, and Abraham was yet standing before the Lord.” From this it appears that other than the three angels in form of men and at all events, was the presence of Lord without any shape or form. The other verses of Bible which unambiguously mention about Oneness of God  (Deuteronomy;6:4, Mark;12:29),  Light (Isaiah;60:19; James; 1:17, 1John;1:5), Invisible (Job;23:8-9) Un-searchable (Job;11:7; 37:23;Psalms; 145:3; Isaiah; 40:28; Romans; 11:33), Omnipotent (Geneses17:1; Exodus;6:3), Omniscient (Psalms;139:1-6; Proverbs;5:21), Omnipresent (Psalms;139:7; Jeremiah;23:23), Incomparable(Isaiah;44:7; Jeremiah;10:7), None like to Him (Exodus;9:14; Deutronomy;33:26; 2Samuel;7:22; Isaiah;46:5,9),  Infinite (Psalms;147:5; Romans;11:33), Wonderful, Beyond human comprehension (Psalms;139:6), and Underived. (Job;21:22; Isaiah;40:14). “I am God, and there is none like me.”(Isaiah;46:9).
God Need Not to Say, He is God:
It is argued that God is not required to say that He is God, like a doctor does not keep saying he is a doctor, so Jesus Christ did not say openly that he was God. It is well known fact that a person becomes a doctor after prolonged studies and efforts well known to people all around. God has His signs which prove His existence. As God says:  “O Mankind! Worship your Lord Who created you and created those who came before you; by doing this you may expect to guard yourself against evil.”(Qur’an;2:21). Similarly it is mentioned in the Bible: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shall thou serve.”(Luke;4:8). Hence if Jesus asks his followers to worship the God, he would have also asked them to worship him if he claimed to be God but he did not do so because he knew that he was not God but His messenger.
Seen Me, Seen Father:
Jesus said that: ‘he who seen me has seen the Father’ so it is argued that he was divine. According to the Gospel of John: “Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father’?”(John;14:8-9). This verse once read in conjunction with other verses the matter gets clarified: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”(John;1:18), “They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.”(John;8:19), “Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”(John;14:23-24), “He who hates me hates my Father also.”(John;15:23). “They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.”(John;8:19), “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.”(John;6:46-47).
It is evident that; No one has ever seen God, phrase ‘seeing God’ is not used in lateral sense but metaphorically. Hence here, ‘seeing God’ means knowing, loving, believing and acting on the will of God (perform good deeds) and his prophet, Jesus. God says: “O believers! Obey God, obey the Prophet (Qura’n;4:59).
Thomas Said ‘My Lord My God’:
After the episode of crucifixion (crucifiction), Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus did not believe that Jesus was alive, till he puts his fingers in the wounds of Jesus. Eight days later, Jesus walks once more into the upper-room, and he finds Thomas there this time: “Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.”(John;20:27).Thomas realizes the heel he has been. He had signally rejected every proof that Jesus was alive! Every other disciple, beside Judas Iscariot the traitor, had testified that they had seen Jesus and felt him and eaten food with him, but Thomas would not believe! What would he not believe? That the living, pulsating Jesus was making his rounds – Not a ghost of Jesus. Now, being confronted with the physical reality of his presence, demonstrating his physical, material body, he was forced to exclaim: “My Lord and my God!” (John;20:28). The mark of exclamation (!) was not there in King James Version of Bible, but after thorough research, it has been placed in ‘Revised Standard Version’ of Bible. Did Thomas realize at that juncture that Jesus Christ was his Jehovah? Did he and the other disciples fall down in prostration before him? Never! His words were the words of self-reproach commonly uttered by people in routine, if some one missed the train and say; “My God! I missed the train!” It does not imply that the listener is being addressed as God. Hence the incidence does not prove the divinity of Jesus.
The Alpha and Omega:
Jesus claimed divinity, the argument goes, when he said: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (King James Version; Revelation;1:8). Alpha (The 1st), Omega (the last) are the attributes of God. However in the Revised Standard Version, biblical scholars corrected the translation and wrote: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (RSV;Revelation;1:8). A correction was also made in the New American Bible produced by Catholics. The translation of that verse has been amended to put it in its correct context as follows: “The Lord God says: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ ” Hence after this correction, it becomes evident that this was a statement of God wrongly attributed to Jesus. [Also see in Bible Myths; http://bible-pedia.blogspot.com/2011/10/jesus-christ-ass-creator-and-alpha-and.html
Melchizedek with no beginning no end:
He is an other person, high priest mentioned in Bible, who has more God like characteristics but he is not called God.
About God it is said: ” . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2).  And, “Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting” (Psalm 93:2)
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.… [Hebrews 7:1-4]

John 6:42:  They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

While Melchizedek is not called called, why Jesus?

Jesus asked to pray to him – John 14:14

It is claimed that the only one verse where Jesus says that people should pray to him (Jesus) is:John 14:14: “”If you ask [αἰτήσητέ aitēsēte] Me anything in My name, I will do it.”. If we analyse it critically in the Greek word used here is αἰτήσητέ [aitēsēte] meaning “you ask.” now if we move to John 14:16 “And I will pray [ἐρωτήσω erōtēsō] the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”. The difference of Greek words may be noted. Then later the supremacy of Father is clarified at; John 16:23 “In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name”.
John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible; Joh 14:14. If ye shall ask anything,… These words are much, the same with the former, and have been thought, by some, to have crept into the text from the margin; though they seem rather to be repeated by Christ, the more to strengthen and confirm the faith of his disciples in this matter;
People’s New Testament: We must ask in his name, or, in dependence upon the merit and intercession of Christ. As shown elsewhere, we must come with a spirit of complete submission to the Father’s will, feeling that his will is best, and saying in our hearts, Thy will be done (Mt 6:10 Lu 11:2). [http://bible.cc/john/14-14.htm]
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary: 1John 4:12-17 Whatever we ask in Christ’s name, that shall be for our good, and suitable to our state, he shall give it to us. To ask in Christ’s name, is to plead his merit and intercession, and to depend upon that plea. [http://bible.cc/john/14-14.htm].
It is clear that John 14:14, is not an authentic one, crept in from marginal notes, however even if accepted, it merely highlight the intersession of Jesus Christ to God, not making him God. It is supported by John 16:23 “In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name“. There are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.
The Pre-Existence of Christ- ‘I Am’:
It is claimed that Jesus is divine because he existed prior to his appearance on earth: “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”(John;8:58).  However, the concept of the pre-existence of the prophets and of man in general, exists in both the Qur’an and the Old Testament: “Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”(Jeremiah;1:4-5).
Prophet Solomon said: “Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water, Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world When he established the heavens, I was there.”(Proverbs;8:23-27).
God addressed Prophet Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding… You Know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!” to (Job;38:4 & 21). In the Qur’an, God says: “When your Lord gathered all of Adam’s descendants (before creation) and made them bear witness for themselves, saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all replied: Yes indeed, we bear witness. [That was] so you could not say on the Day of Judgment: ‘We were unaware of this.” (Qur’an;7:172).
Accordingly, the statement of Prophet Jesus; “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity.  Jesus ostensibly have spoken about God’s knowledge of His prophets, which predates the creation of this world in the perspective of John;8:54-58.
One with God:
While quoting out of context, Jesus is reported to have said, “I and the Father are one.” (John;10:30), hence he is considered to be claiming divinity. However, when the Jews accused him of claiming divinity, based on that statement, “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, Ye are gods?” He clarified for them, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings. Further evidence is drawn, whereby people asked Jesus to show them the Father, and he reportedly said: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.” (John;14:10-11).
These expressions would imply Jesus’ divinity, if the rest of the Gospel of John is disregarded because, Jesus is also recorded as saying to his disciples, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”(John;14:20). Thus, combined result of Jesus’ statements at (John;14:10-11) and (John;14:20) is that:  Jesus was with the Father and Father in Jesus, disciples of Jesus in Jesus and Jesus in them (disciples), hence Father in Jesus and all his 12 disciples, ‘all one’; 14 Gods![1+1+12=14] Jesus did not mean physical union. These symbolic statements mean oneness of purpose and not oneness of essence.
The symbolic interpretation is further accentuated when Jesus said, “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” (John;17:20-21).
In the Beginning was the ‘Word’:
The most frequently quoted ‘proof’ for Jesus’ divinity is: “In the beginning was the ‘Word’, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…” (John;1:1&14).  It is to be kept in view that, these statements were not made by Jesus Christ, nor were they attributed to him by the author of the Gospel according to John. Consequently, these verses do not constitute evidence for Jesus’ divinity, especially considering the doubts held by Christian scholars about the Fourth Gospel. Most of the Bible scholars opine that: “The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic gospels (i.e., the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke) cannot both be historically accurate….The words attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are the creation of the evangelist for the most part, and reflect the developed language of John’s Christian community.”
Logos:
The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel (by John) for “word” is logos. In doing so, the author identifies Jesus with the pagan logos of Greek philosophy, which was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. The idea of the logos in Greek thought may be traced back at least to the 6th-century-BC philosopher, Heracleitus, who proposed that there was a ‘logos’ in the cosmic process analogous to the reasoning power in man.  Later, the Stoics [Stoics; are members of a Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that human beings should be free from passion and should calmly accept all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order.] defined the logos as an active, rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality.  The Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, Judaeus Philo of Alexandria (15 BC-45 CE), taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can comprehend God. The writings of Philo were preserved and cherished by the Church, and provided the inspiration for a sophisticated Christian philosophical theology. He departed from Platonic thought regarding the Logos (Word) and called it “the first-begotten Son of God”.
The identification of Jesus with the ‘Logos’ was further developed in the early Church as a result of attempts made by early Christian theologians and apologists to express the Christian faith in terms that would be intelligible to the Hellenistic world.  Moreover, it was to impress their hearers with the view that Christianity was superior to, or heir to, all that was best in pagan philosophy.  Thus, in their apologies and polemical works, the early Christian Fathers stated that Christ was the ‘Preexistent Logos’.
The Greek word for ‘God’ used in the phrase “and the Word was with God,” is the definite form hotheos, meaning ‘The God’.  However, in the second phrase “and the Word was God”, the Greek word used for ‘God’ is the indefinite form tontheos, which means ‘a god’. Consequently, John;1:1, should more accurately be translated, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Therefore, if the Word was a ‘god’ in the literal sense, it would mean that there were two Gods and not one. However, in Biblical language, the term ‘god’ is used metaphorically to indicate power.  For example, Paul referred to the devil as “god” in 2nd Corinthians;4:4, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.” Moses is also referred to as “god” in Exodus;7:1, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Jesus is clearly mentioned as a man and messenger of God: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know”(Acts;2:22).
‘Word’ As Command:
Miraculous birth of Jesus through ‘Word form God’ has been mentioned: “When the angels said “O Mary! God gives you the good news through a Word from Him (kalimah min -hu) that you will be given a son: his name will be Messiah, (Jesus Christ) the son of Mary…”(Qur’an;3:45). “She said: “O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?”  He said: “Even so: God creates what He Wills; whenever He decides to do anything, He only says (Word) it to ‘Be’ and it is!.”(Qur’an;3:47). Similarly, the act of creation through command (word) is also mentioned in Bible: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”(Genisis;1:3), “And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” .”(Genisis;1:20).“for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities- all things were created through him and for him.”(Clossians;1:16).
Hence the ‘Word form God’ implies ‘the Order of Creation’ by God through His word or command. The word or command of God can not be equated with God as the revelations to the messengers are words of God but not God. The Word is of God, it is His but not Him. If Mr. X says ‘pen’, the word ‘pen’ is the word by Mr. X but ‘pen’ is not Mr. X himself.
Son of God:
It is claimed that since Jesus is the only begotten son of God and the son is like father, so Jesus is divine. According to the Bible of King James Version of 1611 : “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”(John;3:16). According to the Greek Dictionary of The New Testament’; by James Strong The word ‘Son’ is the English translation of word; uiJo>v,-hwee-os’; used in the ancient Greek script, means a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: child, foal, son.
The word ‘begotten’ used here (John;3:16) has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of Bible, being wrongly added because word ‘begotten’ does not exist in the original Greek script. “Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God.”(1John;4:7). Here, ‘born’ is the translation of Greek: genna>w,-ghen-nah’-o; meaning: ‘to procreate [properly of the father, but by extension of the mother; figurative to regenerate: bear, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring; Translation from ‘Greek Dictionary of The New Testament’; by James Strong]. According to this verse, the millions of people who love God, are born of God, obviously ghen-nah’(beget) has been used metaphorically, in the sense of knowing and closeness to God, like at John;3:16.
Expression: Son of God as Servant of God:
The Hebrews believed that God is ONE, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense; hence it is obvious that the expression “son of God” merely meant to them “Servant of God”; one who, because of his faithful service, was close and dear to God, as a son is to a father. Christians who came from a Greek and Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, “son of God” signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. When the Church cast aside its Hebrew foundations, it adopted the pagan concept of “son of God”, which was entirely different from the Hebrew usage. Consequently, the use of the term “son of God” should only be understood from the Semitic symbolic sense of a “servant of God”, and not in the pagan sense of a literal offspring of God. In the four Gospels, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.”(Mathew;5:9), “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of god.”(Romans; 8:14). The term ‘Son of God’ has been used numerously for people near to God like Prophet Jacob, Solomon, David in the Bible. (Some references are; 2nd Samuel 8:13-14, Psalms 89:26-27: of Job 1:6, “Psalms 2:7, in Luke 4:41, Hosea;1:10, Jeremiah;31:9, Job;2:1,38:4-7, Genesis;6:2, Deuteronomy;14:1, Luke;3:38, Exodus;4:22-23, 2Samuel;8:13-14, Psalms;2:7, 89:26-27, Luke; 4:41 and 9:22). Even the angels are referred to as ‘sons of God’: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (Job;1:6).
Son of Man & Son of God in New Testament:
In the Gospels Jesus is reported to have repeatedly called himself “Son of man”(Mathew; 9:6, Luke;9:22). No less than eighty five places term “Son of man” has been mentioned in New Testament. Jesus even rejected being called “Son of God”: “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’   But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.”(Luke;4:41). God says: “Further to warn those who say “God has begotten a son.” They have no knowledge, nor do their forefathers. Dreadful is the word that comes from their mouths. They speak nothing but a lie.”(Qur’an;18:4-5). Hence in the Bible, wherever Jesus, prophets or others are referred as son or sons of God, it is metaphorical and not in literal sense. Consequently claim of divinity of Jesus is not valid.
Jesus Addressed as God, Father:
An other argument given to support the divinity of Jesus is that Jesus addressed God as Abba Father, hence he was son of God, so divine: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”(Romans;8:15). The Hebrew word Abba~,-ab-bah’; is of Chaldee origin means father, similarly the word used in the ancient Greek script is path>r -pat-ayr’; means “father, parent”(literal or figurative, near or more remote). Hence the use of the term abba, “dear father” by Jesus’ should be understood similarly: The word ‘Father’ is used for the ‘God’ or the ‘Lord’ not as biological father but metaphorically in the spiritual sense as The Creator & Sustainer at many places in the Bible: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.”(Romans;8:14). “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation”(Psalms;89:26), “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”(Mathew;5:48),“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven” (Mathew;6:1); “But you, when you pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.”(Mathew; 6:6),“Be not therefore like them: for your Father knows what things you have need of, before you ask him”(Mathew;6:8);“After this manner therefore pray: Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name”(Mathew; 6:9);“For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.” (Mathew; 6:32), Jesus said to Mary; “…go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your God….” (John; 20:17).
Metaphorical use of word ‘Father’ in Bible:
The metaphorical use of word ‘Father’ is also found with other prophets in Bible, Joseph saying: “And now it was not you sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and Lord of all his house, and governor over all the land of Egypt.”(Genesis;45:8), “… Abraham; for a father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.”(Genesis;17:5), and Job is called the father of the needy (Job;29:16). Again by theologians alluding to Psalms;110, Jesus is a called Priest or a Father of the priesthood, forever. “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.”(John;5: 37).“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;” (Jhon;14:16). “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me”.(John; 5:30).
Even in some of the writings of Paul, which the Church has taken to be sacred, Jesus (peace be upon him) is referred to as a “man”, distinct and different from God. Paul writes: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy;2:5). Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) would die for their sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the Commandments. It is indeed striking to note the divergence between the words of Prophet Jesus Christ and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). James Barr has recently argued forcefully that it did not have the specially intimate sense that has so often been attributed to it, but that it simply meant “father”. To think of God as “our heavenly Father”(Mathew;6:14) was by no means new, for in the Lord’s prayer Jesus  is reported to have taught his disciples to address God in this same familiar way: “Thus therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in the heavens, let thy name be sanctified,”(Mathew;6:9).
Jesus Addressed as Lord:
It is argued that since Jesus was addressed as ‘Lord’ and he did not object, hence it proves his divinity. [According to Oxford dictionary, ‘lord’ means: ‘master, lord and master, ruler, leader, chief, monarch, sovereign, king, emperor, prince, governor, commander, captain, overlord, suzerain, baron, potentate, liege, nobleman, peer, aristocrat, feudal lord, landowner, lord of the manor, seigneur; duke, earl, viscount. To believe in the Lord God, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, Christ the Lord, the Redeemer, the Saviour.’] According to a research, the word Lord has been used in New Testament KJV, at 736 places, out of this, at 731 places word Lord is used as translation of Greek;koo’-ree-os; [ku>riov from ku~rov meaning: (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): God, Lord, master, Sir]. According to ancient Greek scripts, Jesus has been referred respectfully as; koo’-ree-os, translated  as ‘Lord’, where as it also means Sir, Mr. (as a respectful title). Hence instead of using Lord for Jesus as one of the meanings of koo’-ree-os, Jesus could have also been addressed as master, Sir or Mr. as a respectful title. Word ‘Lord’ besides being used as a title for God has also been used as respectable title for husband and man of authority or ruler in Old Testament: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord (husband) being old also?”(Genesis;18:12). In Genesis;44:18-20, the brothers of Joseph addressed him ‘Lord’ as a token of respect because Joseph was holding the seat of high authority in the government of Egypt.  [‘Lord’, here is the translation of Hebrew; ynda; ‘adown, aw-done, meaning to rule; sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine): lord, master, owner. In Old Testament for ‘The One God’, a special name from Hebrew; hwhy-Yhovah, yeh-ho-vaw’; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:- Jehovah, the Lord’ has been used for example at Genesis;25:23-24.]
At five places (Luke;2:29,  Acts;4:24, 2Peter;2:1, Jude;1:4, Rev;6:10) word Lord is used as a translation of Greek; despo>thv, des-pot’-ace; meaning: an absolute ruler (“despot”); Lord, master. It is mentioned in New Testament that; Simeon was a righteous and devout man of Jerusalem; he was looking for the promised comforter of Jews. When child Jesus was brought at the temple, Simeon took him up in his arms, blessed God and said; “Lord (des-pot’-ace), now let your servant depart in peace, according to your word :(Luke;2:29). Richard Francis Weymouth in; ‘The New Testament In Modern Speech’ has translated it as: “Now, O Sovereign Lord (des-pot’-ace), Thou dost send Thy servant away in peace, in fulfillment of Thy word, (Luke;2:29). Obviously here word Lord (des-pot’-ace) has been used for The God, the Supreme Deity. Similarly the other verses: “And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God (theh’-os) with one accord, and said, Lord(des-pot’-ace), thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:”(Acts;4:24);“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord (des-pot’-ace-despothV) that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”(2Peter;2:1). “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord (des-pot’-ace) God (theh’-os-, deity, God),, and our Lord (kurioV kurios koo’-ree-os; Mr. as a respectful title, God, Lord, master, Sir) Jesus Christ.”(Jude;1:4).“And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord (des-pot’-ace), holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”(Revlation;6:10). It is evident that the Greek; des-pot’-ace has been translated as Lord for God, ‘husband’ and ‘man of authority’ in Bible. The Greek; koo’-ree-os, has also been translated as Lord for more than one meaning including God, the titles of respect like Mr. Sir and master;  which has been used for Jesus, hence it does not support the claim of divinity of Jesus by claimants.
Jesus Called Rabbi:
It is claimed that since Jesus was addressed as Rabbi, hence he was divine: “Now there was one of the Pharisees whose name was Nicodemus a ruler among the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher from God; for no one can do these miracles which you are doing, unless God is with him.”(John;3:1-2). Word ‘Rab’ (Hebrew:br rab) has its origin from Aramaic, meaning : captain, elder, chief, full, great, lord, master, stout, mighty, exceedingly, abundant (in quantity, size, age, number, rank, quality). An expounder of the (Jewish) law is called a Rabbi: doctor (teacher) of the law. Rabbi, as an official title of honor:  Master, Rabbi.
Jesus Accepted Worship?
Hebrews had various traditions of paying homage and respect, which may be confused to mean ‘worship’. Some have been mentioned in the Bible: Bowing frequently to the ground (Genesis;33:3-4); Falling prostrate on the ground (Esther;8:3; Mathew;2:11; Luke;8:41); Embracing and kissing the feet (Mathew;28:9; Luke;7:38,45); Kissing the dust (Psalms;72:9; Isaiah;49:23). Some example are: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;”(Genesis;19:1); “And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,”(Genesis;18:2); “And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.”(Judges;19:20).
It is reasoned that Jesus is divine because he accepted the worship of some of his followers. Conversely, a closer look at the texts indicates that this view is based on dubious translation and misinterpretation. The term “worship” is found in the narrative mentioned in ‘King James Version’ and ‘The Revised Standard Version’, about three wise men who came from the East. They were reported to have said, “Where is the baby born to be the king of the Jews? We saw his star when it came up in the east, and we have come to worship him.”(Matthew;2:2). The word translated as worship, form the ancient Greek script is ‘pros-koo-neh’-o’(proskune>w-proskun’ew) probably derivative of Koo’-Ohn (ku>wn-ku’wn);a primary word; a dog, “hound”, literal or figurative) dog (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literal or figurative) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): worship. A careful look at the narrative in perspective reveal that the wise men of east came to see the ‘King of Jews’, not the ‘God of Jews’, the logical meanings of the Greek word ‘proskune>w-proskun’ew’ should be Prostrate Oneself In Homage (do reverence to, adore) as customary done in the East to the kings. The men of East did not say; ‘Where is the baby born to be the God of the Jews? Had they instead of king said ‘God of Jews’, the possibility to WORSHIP him would have had some rationale.
The worship as related to God, is mentioned in an other place in Bible: “We know that God hears not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he hears. Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”(John;9:31-33). Here besides calling Jesus as a man from God, the word ‘worshipper of God’ is used which is translation of Greek  word ‘qeosebh>v-theh-os-eb-ace’; (derived from qeo>v and se>bomai); meaning: reverent of God, i.e. pious – worshipper of God. Hence proper world for worship-related with God in Greek is ‘qeosebh>v-theh-os-eb-ace’ and not proskune>w,- pros-koo-neh’-o. In continuation of same narrative, the miraculously cured blind man said: “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.”(John;9:38). The word worshipped used here for Jesus, is the translation of Greek word proskune>w,- pros-koo-neh’-o also used in verse Matthew;2:2, explained above, meaning Prostrate Oneself In Homage  and not qeosebh>v- ‘theh-os-eb-ace’; used to express reverence and – worship of God.[Translations from; ‘Greek Dictionary of The New Testament’; by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D.]
The comparison of different translations of verse 9:38 of Gospel according to John is self explanatory:
  1. “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him” (King John’s Version)
  2. “He said, “Lord, I believe”; and he worshiped him”(Revised Standard Version)
  3. “And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage”(Darby Translation: by John Nelson Darby)
  4. “I believe, Sir,” he said. And he threw himself at his feet.”(By Richard Francis Weymouth)
  5. “and he said, “I believe, sir,’ and bowed before him.” (Young’s Bible 1863: By Robert Young).
The most accurate and relevant translations is found at serial 5), ‘Young’s Bible Translation New Testament 1863 Version: Translated by Robert Young who translated ‘proskune>w,- pros-koo-neh’-o’ as bowed and not as worship.
In “The American Bible”, the scholarly translators added a footnote that: ‘This verse, omitted in important MSS (manuscripts), may be an addition for a baptismal liturgy. This verse is not found in important ancient manuscripts containing this Gospel. It is probably a later addition made by Church scribes for use in baptismal services’. George M. Lamsa, a renowned authority on the Bible and its original language, elucidate; ‘The Aramaic word seg-eed’, worship, also means to bend or to kneel down[cgid, seg-eed’; (Aramaic) worship, corresponding to Hebrew; cagad, saw-gad’; to prostrate oneself (in homage), fall down].
Easterners in greeting each other generally bowed the head or bent down. …‘He worshipped him’ does not imply that he worshipped Jesus in a manner as God is worshipped. Such an act would have been regarded as blasphemous and a breach of the First Commandment in the eyes of the Jews, and the man might have been stoned. But he knelt before him in token of homage and gratitude.’ Hence it is appropriate to understand the word worship used in the context for Jesus in the translations of New Testament, to mean   ‘bowed in homage and gratitude’.
Jesus Preached to Worship only One God:
Jesus Christ repeatedly preached to worship only God: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”(Luke;4:8), “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.(John;4:23),“Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father(Islam: Surrender to will of God) who is in heaven  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’.”(Mathew;7:21-23). “I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God [qeo>v, theh’-os; the Supreme Divinity]”(Revelation;22:8).
The final scripture, the Qur’an, clarifies such issue by quoting a conversation which will take place between Jesus and God on the Day of Judgment: “When God will say: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people: “Worship me and my mother as two gods instead of God?” ’…(Jesus will say): ‘I only told them what You commanded me to say: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord …” (Qura’n;5:116-7).
Jesus Performed Miracles with Will of God:
The performance of miracles by Jesus does not make him divine because previously many prophets have been performing miracles with the power and authority granted by God. Elisha served small quantity of bread to hundred people to their fill (2Kings;4:42-44), cured leper  (2Kings;5:14), and blind (2Kings;6:17-21), raised the dead alive (2Kings;2:34), (2Kings;13:21). Elijah also raised the dead as alive (1Kings;17:21-24). Jesus walked over water, where as Moses took the children of Israel through the water: “And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.” (Exodus;14:22).
Hence performance of miracles is not the criteria to prove the divinity because they are performed with the power and will of God. Jesus cautioned against false prophets: “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”(Mathew;24:24).

Jesus and The Prophesies of Isaiah:

Immanuel:
It is a common perception among the Christian theologians that the prophesy of advent of Jesus exist in Old Testament in the Book of Isaiah; “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (hmle `almah al-maw’) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”(Issiah;7:14). Here the word virgin is a translation of Hebrew word Mle `alam aw-lam’; means: young woman who is veiled, concealed, hidden, secret, damsel, maid, virgin. Al-maw’a is feminine of `µl,[,-`elem, eh’-lem; means properly, something kept out of sight, i.e. a lad:  young man, stripling; eh’-lem; It is derived from alam, aw-lam’; a primitive root; to veil from sight, i.e. conceal (literally or figuratively): – X any ways, blind, dissembler, hide (self), secret (thing).
In Hebrew; lawnme [‘Immanuw’el im-maw-noo-ale’]means; with us (is) God; Most of the scholars agree that Immanuel, is a type name of Isaiah’s son. It is evident that in actual perspective it is being mentioned at; Issiah;7:14, that a young woman will bear a son who shall be called by the name  Immanuel. Translating al-maw’ as virgin, and name  Immanuel in literal sense ‘God is with us,’ is nothing but interpolation, concoction to apply this prophesy to Jesus without any historic and literal justification, as it is well known fact that Jesus was never called Immanuel.
History & Analysis of Prophesies of Isaiah:
The historic milieu of the Prophesies of Isaiah have been explained at Encyclopedia Britannica:
During the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734-732 B.C), Isaiah began to challenge the policies of King Ahaz of Judah. Syria and Israel had joined forces against Judah. Isaiah’s advice to the young King of Judah was to place his trust in Yahweh. Apparently Isaiah believed that Assyria would take care of the northern threat. Ahaz, in timidity, did not want to request a sign from Yahweh. In exasperation Isaiah told the King that Yahweh would give him a sign anyway: “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”(Issiah;7:14). [It is striking that ‘virgin’ has been replaced as ‘young woman’.] Thus, by the time this child is able to know how to choose good and refuse evil, the two minor kings of the north who were threatening Judah will be made ineffective by the Assyrians. The name Immanuel, “God is with us,” would be meaningful in this situation because God on Mt. Zion and represented in the person of the king would be faithful to his Covenant people.
Ahaz, however, placed his trust in an alliance with Assyria under the great conqueror Tiglath-pileser III. In order to give hope to the people, who were beginning to experience the Assyrian encroachments on Judean lands in 738 B.C, Isaiah uttered an oracle to “the people who walked in darkness”: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God (la-‘el, ale), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”(Isaiah;9:6). Isaiah trusted that Yahweh would bring about a kingdom of peace under a ruler.  ‘Mighty God’ has been translated from Hebrew; la-‘el, ale [which is a shortened from of lyia” -‘lya ‘ayil ah’-yil; which means, properly, strength; hence, anything strong; specifically a chief (politically); also a ram (from his strength); a pilaster (as a strong support); an oak or other strong tree: – mighty (man), lintel, oak, post, ram, tree. Hence lae – ‘el, ale; means; strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity): God (god), X goodly, X great, idol, might(-y one), power, strong]. Hence proper meanings of lae-‘el, ale according to the context in this verse should be mighty man or strong man and not Mighty God.
This Prophesy is Not Applicable to Jesus:
As evident from analysis of verse, Isaiah;9:6:
(1)              Jesus never desired to rule: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”(John;18:36). “They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”(Mathew;22:21).
(2)              The word ‘Mighty God’ is incorrect translation, however ‘God’  is used in Bible for prophets, metaphorically in the sense of power or judge, for example: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”(Exodos;7:1); “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”(Psalms;82:6).
(3)              ‘Everlasting’ has been used metaphorically indicating long period: “And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.”(Ezekiel;37:25). “He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.” (Psalms;21:4).
(4)              ‘Father’, (Hebrew; ba ‘ab awb) father is used in literal or figurative and remote application for forefather or chief. Joseph said: “So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and Lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.”(Genisis:45:8). Job said: “I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out.”(Job;29:16).
The Prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah:
Second Isaiah contains the very expressive so-called Servant Songs. Writing from Babylon, the author begins with a message of comfort and hope and faith in Yahweh. The people are to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem, which has paid “double for all her sins.” As creator and Lord of history, God will redeem Israel, his chosen servant. Through the Servant of the Lord all the nations will be blessed: “I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.” The Suffering Servant, whether the nation Israel or an individual agent of Yahweh, will help to bring about the deliverance of the nation. Though Second Isaiah may have been referring to a hoped-for rise of a prophetic figure, many scholars now hold that the Suffering Servant is Israel in a collective sense. Christians have interpreted the Servant Songs, especially the fourth, as a prophecy referring to Jesus of Nazareth–“He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief…,”(Isiah;53:3) but this interpretation is theologically oriented and thus open to question, according to many scholars.

Trinity & Preaching to Gentiles:

The concept of God as preached by Jesus is of one God: “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: (Mark;12:29), “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. He said unto him, Which? Jesus said, You shall do no murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother: and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The young man said unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If you will be perfect, go and sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.”(Mathew;19:16-23). “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.(Ephesians;4:5-6).
Sir Issac Newton, great scientist & scholar rejected Trinity like many other thinkers:
However the Christians claim divinity of Jesus when, on the basis of: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”(Mathew;28:19).
An objective analysis, make this questionable because, although compiled from the same source, the Gospel according to Mark does not support this view: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”(Mark;16:15). Similarly in other books there is no mention of three: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”(Acts;2:38),“For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(Acts;8:16), “And he directed that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they begged him to remain with them for a time.”(Acts;10:48). Therefore the early Churches did not adopt to baptize in the names of three.
As already mentioned, which is being repeated hare that; the only one verse in the whole of Bible which, the supporters interpreted to supports this Christian dogma, and that is: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.”(The first Epistle of John;5:7,8). (in some volumes this  changed as : “There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree”. In the foot not of this verse in ‘New International Version Bible’ it is written; ‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteen century. Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.’s in a footnote to this verse opine: “It is generally agreed that this verse has no manuscript authority and has been inserted.” The fundamentalist Christians still retain this fabrication whereas; in all the modern translations including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) this pious deceit has been unceremoniously expunged.
Jesus never claimed that he was sent for Gentiles; he insisted that he was sent for the Jews: “But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”(Mathew;15:24). He rather strictly forbade preaching Gentiles: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”(Mathew;10:5-6), “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”(Mathew;19:28). Hence the conflicting references attributed to Jesus seems to be fabrication, concoction and interpolation.

Jesus Did Not Claim to be God:

God says:” Certainly they have disbelieved who say: “Christ the son of Mary is God.” While Christ himself said: “O children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever ascribes divinity to any one besides God, un to him will God deny paradise, and the hellfire will be his home. There will be no helper for the wrongdoers.( Qur’an;5:72). This statement of Jesus still exist in three Gospels:
Then said Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”(Mathew;4:10, Luke;4:8)
“Jesus said to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”(John;2017).
According to the Christian scriptures Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) himself says, “I am God” or where he says, “worship me”. In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) in which he preached quite the contrary:  “My Father is greater than I.” (John;14:28). “My Father is greater than all.”(John;10:29). “…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God….” (Mathew;12:28). “…I with the finger of God cast out devils….” (Luke;11:20). “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”(John;5:30). Prophet Jesus refuted even the remotest suggestion of his divinity, as evident form Bible: “And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Mathew;19:16-17).
God says in Qur’an: “O people of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but 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: (for 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.(Qur’an;4:171). “Say: He is God the One and Only; God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being; He begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing that can be compared with Him.”( Qur’an;112:1-4).
Common Verses quoted to support Trinity-Explained:

The following are clear explanations of the verses in the Bible that Trinitarians have sometimes used in attempts to “prove” the Trinity and to substantiate that Jesus is God. Since there are an overwhelming number of very clear verses about Jesus Christ’s identity and his distinction from God, and since God’s Word has no contradictions, these comparatively few verses must fit with the many clear verses, and they do.  http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses

Conclusion:

There is One, Single, Unique God, clearly mentioned in Bible:-

  • In the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.
  • There are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.
  • There are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.
  • There are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.
  • Of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.
  • The passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.
  • In a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support after twisting and manipulation.
Jesus will be questioned in the hereafter: “After reminding him of these favors, God will say: “O Jesus son of Marry, Did you ever say to the people, “worship me and my mother as gods beside God?” He will answer: “Glory to You! How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I know not what is in Yours; for You have full knowledge of all the unseen. I never said anything other than what You commanded me to say, that is to worship God, Who is my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You called me off, You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to everything. If You punish them, they surely are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are Mighty, Wise.”(Qur’an;5:116-118). According to Bible Jesus said: “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Islam: Surrender to will of God). On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’.”(Methew;7:21-23).
Since present Bible is neither recorded in the original words of God revealed to the Prophets in their original languages nor the authenticity, and chain of narrators is well known, God sent His Last messenger and revealed the Last Testament, still available in the original revealed form & language. It is incumbent upon humanity to consult Quran to seek guidance.
Articles on This Site:

Jesus Christ, Christianity and Bible

Melchizedek with no beginning no end:
” . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2).  And, “Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting” (Psalm 93:2)
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.… [Hebrews 7:1-4]
John 6:42:  They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
RELATED:

Trinity, Divinity of Jesus: