The Hidden Truth
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIUOS, THE MOST
MERCIFUL
“TRINITY”
By
UMAR HASSAN
"THEY DO BLASPHEME WHO SAY: GOD IS
ONE OF THREE IN A TRINITY: FOR THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ONE GOD."
Holy Qur’ân, 5:73; Trans.: Yusuf Ali
Praise is to Almighty Allah and Peace and Blessings of Almighty
Allah be upon all His Messengers.
Introduction
I was actually pushed into this topic by a
Christian brother. At this stage, when I have come to know so many facts about "Trinity", it would be really selfish not to
thank him, by whose push I explored this topic.
It
was indeed an interesting topic to search. In the following are some important
facts along with proves.
The
purpose of these articles is not to hurt the Christians, but, to bring forward
the facts.
Let
us first of all have a glance in the time of yore to know about Trinity, and
how it crawled into Christianity.
Trinity
The concept of "Trinity" was in
fact a very old worshipping practice; it started long time before the time of
Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty
Allah be upon him –. It was in
In
This polytheistic (believing in more than
one god) Trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and
slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Jesus
– peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – The idea of "God the
Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into
Christianity. Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in
Three centuries after Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, the corrupt emperor Constantine
forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in
fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council
of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is
God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is
God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally
depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said
that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."
If you follow the logic here then first
you have Jesus Christ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as
God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as man and God.
If Jesus Christ – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon him – is both man and God; does this mean that God is
also totally depraved?
Doctrine of Trinity
According to the first two Ecumenical
Councils of Church, God is three gods merged into one God. This one God is
called the Trinity. This name of God does not exist anywhere in the New
Testament! However, to say that God is three, in Christianity, is a blasphemy
of the highest order. All three parts of the Trinity are "coequal",
"co-eternal" and "of the same substance." In other words,
while the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sustain distinct relationships to one
another, they share the same divine nature.
The
Trinitarian doctrine of the Gnostic, which was adopted by the Church in 325
C.E. states the following [Joseph Campbell, "The Masks of God: Accidental
Mythology", Penguin Books,
1. We believe in one God,
the Father all-Sovereign, maker of all things, both visible and invisible;
2. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten;
3. That is, from the
essence of the Father,
4. God from God, Light
from Light, true God from true God - begotten, not made - being of one essence
with the Father;
5. By whom all things were
made, both things in heaven and things on earth;
6. Who for us men and for
our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose
again the third day, ascended into heaven, cometh to judge the quick and the
dead;
7. And in the Holy Spirit.
8. But those who say that
`there was once when he was not,' and `before he was begotten he was not,' and
`he was made of things that were not,' or maintain that the Son of God is of a
different essence, or created or subject to moral change or alteration - these
doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize.
The Christians
have their three Gods responsible for the following duties:
(a) The Father creates and sustains the world.
(b) The son ensures salvation and atones for the sins of man.
(c) The Holy Ghost prepares the human mind for faith and maintains
the believer in the state of faith.
Rational
Examination
Let us first analyze the 2nd
point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic, which states:
"And in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten;"
Christian brothers and sisters, you should not accept the word
"son" literally, because the God has ‘Sons by the Tons’ in the Bible.
Please, have the pleasure of investigating for yourself
"And thou [Moses] shalt say unto Pharaoh: 'Thus saith
the Lord,
"He [Solomon] shall build a house
for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be
his father and he shall be My son." II Samuel 7:13-14 (Emphasis
mine)
"I
am a father to
"Ye are the children of the
Lord your God." Deuteronomy 14:1 (Emphasis mine)
"For whom he did fore know, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn
of many brethren." Romans
How many sons? So you see my Christian brothers and
sisters, Moses – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God, Solomon – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God,
Ephraim – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God, common people are children of God,
David – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God. So many sons, yet ONE son claimed by the Christendom.
The reality is that, the
phrase "Son of God" signifies love and affection and nearness to God,
and that it is not to be applied to Jesus alone. You will see sons and
daughters of God: II Corinthians 6:18: "And will be a Father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty."
Now, to the point of being "BEGOTTEN"
About
RSV
First published, as Sir Winston says, in
1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and then re-revised and brought up to date
as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and again re-re-revised in
1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this
most revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT
CENTURY." — (
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)
(Emphasis mine)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work) (Emphasis mine)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE
RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times) (Emphasis mine)
The
publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of
their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT
OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS."
So, you
see that RSV is ‘Finest Version’, by the ‘32
Highest Eminent Scholars’ and above all ‘Most Accurate and Close
Rendering to the ORIGINAL’.
And you know, that this RSV, which is claimed to be in accordance
to the ‘ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES’ removed the word,
"Begotten" in their RSV.
Now,
this verse in RSV reads like:
"For God so loved the
world that he gave his only Son," John
Secondly, long before Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was born, God said to David
(Psalms 2:7):
"I
will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me [David]: 'Thou art my son;
this day have I begotten thee."' Psalms 2:7 (Emphasis mine)
Islamic
Point of View
We, as Muslims take strong
exception for attributing such a quality to that Almighty One. Begetting is an
animal act; it belongs to lower class of animal group. The Almighty God does
not take his seed and put it into anyone’s daughter, sister mother or a wife.
How can you attribute such a filthy quality to The Almighty God?
The Holy Qur’ân speaks of the same issue
"He Begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten." Holy
Qur’ân 112:3
As far as the 3rd
point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic is concerned, that states:
"(2) And
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only
begotten; (3) That is, from
the essence of the Father,"
You can see that the 3rd point is the continued link to
the 2nd point. The 3rd point states that Jesus – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is of the same essence as that of
the Father.
This point is further clarified in the 4th point of the
same Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic:
"God from
God, Light from Light, true God from true God - begotten, not made - being of
one essence with the Father;"
If Jesus is from
God, then both of them have the same "Fundamental
Nature" as mentioned in the 3rd point and explained in the
4th point, then the problem with this point is that:
1.
It
means, that when Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – died on the
cross (Romans
5:6, John
2. According to John
"Ye have neither
heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his shape."
Now, if God is Spirit according to John
4:24, and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is of the same substance as God according to Athanasius, then the substance of both God and Jesus –
peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is
Spirit. It follows that humans should not be able to see Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, because he is also spirit!
With regards to the 6th point of the Trinitarian
Doctrine of the Gnostic:
"Who
for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man,
suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, cometh to judge
the quick and the dead;"
It has some of the following answer demanding questions:
1. God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished
for the sins of others, nor should some people be saved by punishing other
people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – to save us contradict the definition of justice?
2. Christians say that "GOD SACRIFICED
His only son to save us". The question is "to whom
did God SACRIFICE Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – when God
owns the whole universe?"
3. A real sacrifice is when you can’t get
back what you have offered, so what would be the big deal about such a
sacrifice if God could recover the same offering? (Hebrews
4. If all the Christians are saved through
Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty
Allah be upon him – and are going to Heaven no matter
what they do, then the teachings of Jesus – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon him – are irrelevant and the
definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so,
then do Christians who believe in Jesus – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon him – yet do not follow his
teachings nor repent go to Hell?
5.
Why
does the Bible say that Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – wanted to
die on the cross, when, on the cross, he was shouting "My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?
6.
How
can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – says in Matthew 12:36;
"But I say unto you
that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account
thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned"?
Final
Questions
Regarding "Trinity", following are some
logic demanding questions:
1.
When
Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty
Allah be upon him – died on the cross. Did he die as
a "MAN" or did he
die as a "GOD"?
2.
To be "GOD"
means freedom from finite forms
and from helplessness, and to
be "MAN" means the
absence of divinity. Can you have the FINITE
and INFINITE at the same time?
3. Is
God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?
4. If
God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the
complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the
"father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus –
peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – always
said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also
mean that there was no complete God then, between the claimed crucifixion and
the claimed resurrection?
5. If
God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references
to a God in Heaven that sent him?
6. If God is three and one at the same time,
who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and
the claimed resurrection?
7.
Christians
say that: "The Father (F) is God, the Son (S) is God, and the Holy Ghost (H)
is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the
Holy Ghost is not the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore,
if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second
part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H (meaning, "not equal").
Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself?
Unitarian Christians
Quite
soon after Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – disappearance
from earth, there was a definite and widening divergence between the followers
of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and the Pauline
Church, which was later to become known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Differences between the two were not only evident in life-style and belief, but
were also clearly delineated geographically. As the Pauline Church grew more
established, it became increasingly hostile to the followers of Jesus – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. It aligned itself more and more
with the rulers of the
Most of the early martyrs were
Unitarians. The more the doctrine of Trinity became accepted, the more its
adherents opposed those who affirmed the Divine Unity. By the time the Emperor
Julian came to power, this infighting had reached such a level that he said:
"No wild beasts are so hostile to man as Christian sects in
general are to one another."
Naturally, those who deviated from the
teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – were
prepared to change the Scriptures too, and even introduce false writings in
order to support their opinions. Toland, in his book
The Nazarenes, records these words of Iranius, who
was one of the early Unitarian martyrs:
"In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the
Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of
apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising." Toland, J., "The Nazarenes",
1718.
Toland continues:
"We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went
hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as
ready to receive as the first was to forge books... This evil grew afterwards
not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers
of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely
impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the
beginning and original monuments of Christianity...
How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound
the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to
them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such
as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books
were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers,
and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes,
when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two
other questions: Why all the books cited as genuine by Clement of Alexander, Origen, Tertullian and the rest
of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress
should be laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one
another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of
the very same facts?" Toland,
J., "The Nazarenes", 1718.
Toland goes on to say that when these questions are asked of
the "wooden priests and divinilings,"
instead of meeting the arguments, they begin to call those who raise the
questions "heretics or concealed atheists." He continues:
"This conduct will make them suspect all to be a cheat and
imposture, because men will naturally cry out when they are touched in a tender
part... No man will be angry at a question who is able to answer it." Toland, J., "The Nazarenes",
1718.
Finally, Toland
asks:
"Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites
are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the
first Christians, or those who believed in Christ among the Jews with which,
his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions,
and of whom were all the Apostles, considering this, I say how it was possible
for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first
heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of
Jesus? And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the
preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things,
or whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews?"
Toland, J., "The Nazarenes",
1718, pp.73-76
Mr. Paul
"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that
of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master
taught.... For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent
his message.... That is what Paul and his followers did, and because
the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to
redeem the world.... The teachings given by the blessed Master
Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the
Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly
opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."
Rev. V.A.
Holmes-Gore: "Christ or Paul?" (Emphasis mine)
Paul deviated further and further from
the teachings Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had embodied, and laid more and more emphasis on
the figure of Christ whom he claimed had appeared to him in visions. His
defense against those who accused him of changing the guidance Jesus – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had
brought was that what he preached had its origin in a direct revelation he had
received from Christ. This gave Paul Divine Authority. It was by virtue of this
"authority" he claimed, that the blessings of the Gospel were not
limited to the Jews, but to all who believed. Furthermore, he asserted that the
requirements of the Law of Moses were not only unnecessary, but also contrary
to what had been revealed to him from God. In fact, he said, they were a curse.
Thus, Paul incurred not only the wrath of the followers of Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, but also that of the Jews, since he
was contradicting both of their prophets.
Paul justified his
new doctrine with the use of this analogy:
"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak
to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long
as he liveth? For the woman which hath an
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So
then; if, while her husband liveth, she be married to
another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but, if her husband be
dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also become dead to
the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit
unto God."
Romans 7:1-4 (Emphasis
mine)
According to Paul’s reasoning, the law
which had bound Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and his followers was no longer necessary, since
Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had died. Now they were no longer
"married" to Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon
him –, but to "the one", who had brought another law. It was,
therefore, necessary to follow "the one" and not Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. Thus, anyone who held to Jesus’ –
peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – teaching
had gone astray.
Paul's reasoning had two major
consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus –
peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had taught, but also
prepared the way for completely changing people's ideas to who Jesus – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was. He was being transformed
from a man to a conception in people's minds. This emphasis from Jesus – peace
and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as a man to the new image, which
was divine, enabled the intellectuals in
It appears that Paul rationalized his
actions by holding that there was no link between the period in which Jesus –
peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had lived and the period in
which he himself now lived. Times had changed and the conditions which now
prevailed were such that the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon him – was out of date and could no longer be applied. It
had therefore become necessary to find a new basis for ethics. Paul took stock
of the conditions which existed then taught what they seemed to require him to
believe:
"All things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought
under the power of any." 1
Corinthians 7:12
Paul not only
rejected both Moses and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon them
–, but asserted that he was a law unto himself. Many people, obviously, could
not accept this. Paul responded by saying:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto His Glory; why yet I am also judged a sinner?"
Romans 3:7-8
It would seem from this statement that,
although he knew he was lying, Paul felt that the end justified the means, but
it is not understood how truth would abound through a lie. According to this
reasoning, if the man Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him
– was equated with God, what objections could a follower of Jesus – peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – have?
'In reality' said Paul, 'the law produces wrath, but where there
is now law, neither is there any transgression.' Romans 4:15
The abrogation of
the Law of Moses – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – by Paul
has been a gradual process. In the beginning he started with a few innovations.
Later the Gentile element kept on tampering with the books and introducing new
ideas. Innovations introduced by Paul were simply to entice the Gentiles. He
started with canceling the law of circumcision. But one wrong step let the next
inequality, and ultimately it ended into a faith which more resembled pagan
beliefs than the revealed teachings of Moses or Jesus – peace and blessings of
Almighty Allah be upon them –.
There is, therefore, some justification
for Heinz Zahrant calling Paul a "corruptor of the Gospel of Jesus"
and Werde describing him as "the second founder of
Christianity." Werde says that, due
to Paul: "...
the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church
became so great that any unit between them is scarcely recognizable."
Schonfield also wrote: "The Pauline heresy became the foundation of
Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical."
(Emphasis mine)
History
The
involvement of the Roman Emperors with the Christian Church started with
Emperor Constantine. It all started in
The result, however, was just the
opposite of what he had planned. The supporters of the dead queen joined forces
with the followers of his dead son, and both sought revenge. In desperation he
turned to the priests of the Roman
On his arrival there, he renamed the city
after himself, and called it
Without hesitation,