Jesus-seen in dreams


In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.

                   JESUS–SEEN IN DREAMS
Even if Jesus is seen in dreams this would not make him Divine or vicarious atoner. (See also Jesus-redundant no ransom).

It is intriguing Jesus is coming to non-Jews in dreams when he regarded them as “dogs and “swine” –which is the worst of denigrations as dogs and swine are scavengers and regarded as the lowest of creatures– and preached in parables so they would not understand and be saved. (See APPENDIX).

There are people that claim to have seen Jesus in a dream. Do these people know what Jesus looked like to substantiate that it was Jesus they saw in their dreams?
There is various “true” face of Jesus floating on the Internet. This is not surprising as there is no physical description of Jesus in the Gospels, and as the depicting of Jesus was forbidden:

“During the first three centuries of the Christian Church, however, there was no Christian art, and the Church resisted it with all its might…Only when the Christian Church became the Roman imperial church under Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century were pictures used in the churches;” and “The church historian Eusebius…characterized the use of images of the Apostles Paul and Peter as well as Christ himself as a pagan custom.”1

Thus for 300 years after Christ there seemed to have been no image/picture (or oral physical description) of Christ to be transmitted down to later generations for them to know what he looked like. How then can the seers-of-Christ two millenniums later, know it was Jesus they saw in their dreams? A person in one’s dream can claim to be anyone and would be believed, unless the dreamer is familiar with the person; and knows the person’s voice if his face is obscured.

M.A. Faruqui points out in his revealing book The Crumbling of the Cross (p. 111) that “Jesus Christ was an Asiatic Jew, whose facial features are well known.” And the Book of Revelation’s description of Jesus is that “His head and his hairs were WHITE like wool…and his eyes were like a FLAME OF FIRE; and his feet like unto fine BRASS”–(Rev. 1:14-15. This description of Jesus is close to that given by Prophet Mohammad.2

(Given that Jesus was an “Asiatic Jew” and Revelation’s description, why is the Church promoting a “European” Jesus –white skin, blue eyes, and golden hair– is the Church ashamed of the race/nationality of her God/son of God? or was Jesus given the make-over to make him appealing to Gentiles, as Paul had dressed Jesus as Son of God to make him acceptable to pagans?  –Trying to sell a black Jewish son of God to white people who believe God is a white man would truly be like trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle.
This difference between the Church’s Jesus and the Bible’s could not be because Jesus is said to be resurrected, because the resurrected “are as the angels of God,” spiritualized, not “chameleonized”–(Matthew 22:23-30).
Thus, Jesus must have been DARK skinned with REDDISH EYES, and WHITE hair. Which must have given rise to the claim that Jesus was a “black man.”
For more proof that Jesus/Jews were black or dark-skinned see http://www.angel

So which Jesus did these “dreamers” of Jesus see? the Church’s projection or the Bible’s depiction? or some other face? And if these individuals saw a light and only heard Jesus’ “voice” –just like Paul claiming to have seen a light and hearing Jesus’ “voice” while he was on the road to Damascus– how do they know that it was Jesus’ voice? Do they know the sound and intonation of Jesus’ “voice”?
How do they know it was not the same “voice” that Paul said he heard and which voice could have been that of Satan deceiving Paul into corrupting Jesus’ teachings by having him propagate the pagan Son of God belief;4 much like “Satan” deceiving the Christian Fathers in the fourth century into teaching the “senseless, God-dishonoring doctrine” of Trinity?5

Since Satan can “tempt” the “son of God” (and even tempt God as Christians say Jesus is God)–(Luke 4:1-12); and can mislead the Christian Fathers to devise the unGodly doctrines of Trinity (desecrating Godhood), inherited sin (attributing injustice to God) and vicarious atonement (attributing more injustice to God and making God complicit in murder),6 how much easier it is then for Satan to manipulate the minds of uneducated mortals.  

Were these dreams of Jesus only the replay of the dreamers’ conscious thoughts? (as one of the basis of dreams is said to be the replay of one’s thoughts during his/her conscious moments).
Even if these individuals did see Jesus, what was Jesus conveying to them?

As shown in Jesus-son of God, Jesus is only CALLED” son of God–(Luke 1:35; and God has a legion of sons and daughters including peacemakers which would make the communist Mikhail Gorbachev “son of God).
Jesus says eternal life lies in following the Mosaic law until the coming of the Comforter who will guide into “all truth” and will “abide for ever”–(Matthew 19:17-19); that he came to call sinners to REPENTANCE–(Matt. 9:13; “death” did NOT come into the world because of Adam eating from the forbidden tree; Adam did NOT eat from the tree of eternal life; Adam ate from the tree of knowledge and evil–Genesis 2:16-17; 3:22-23; see 
Christianity-man made to live forever); and Jesus declared that God sent him only for Jews, to seek and save the lost tribes of the House of Israel (not to die for sin, albeit non-existent sin)–(Matthew 10:5-6; 15:24; 18:11; Luke 19:10; John 4:21; 17:9).

So, even if these individuals did see Jesus, what was Jesus conveying to them? Jesus (as detailed in Jesus-a Muslim taught Islam) declared he was a Muslim and taught Islam; that he was prophet of God sent only for Jews and he taught that eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law until the coming of the Comforter who will bring “all truth” and “abide forever” and whom all are to follow.
And this 
Comforter as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– has shown in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible is the Prophet Mohammad.
Thus, people who claim to see Jesus, and if it was Jesus, obviously Jesus was impressing upon them to keep his commandments–(John 14:15) and to follow him by following the ComforterMOHAMMAD.
(See also Jesus-redundant no ransom).

Muslims are to know that Satan even comes in dreams to lead people astray; the only person Satan cannot impersonate is the Prophet Mohammad; so if you know what the Prophet looked like –and it is doubtful that any Muslim of today knows this– and you see him in a dream you can be certain it is him–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #217; Vol. 9, #123). (See Jesus-Curing Muslims & Hindus)

Jesus says that he came to “give his life a ransom for many,” and urged his disciples to  “Take, eat; this is my body…this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins”–(Matthew.20:28; 26:28).
That Jesus was “ransom” and remitter of sins only for his disciples/apostles is clearly stated in Luke 22:14-20, 30:
“This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for YOU (his apostles) ….That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”

(Apart from the fact that Jesus’ dying for the remission of his disciples’ sin is a contradiction of his teaching that eternal life lies in observing the Mosaic law, until the coming of the Comforter who will then guide into all truth’ and ‘abide for ever”)
For which “sin” did Jesus die (though as shown he did not die on the cross).
No one knows!
Thus we have the Christian cow-dance: some saying Christ died for inherited sin (though there is no teaching from God or Jesus that God loaded Adam’s sin onto fetuses and then transferred onto Jesus) and some saying Christ died for committed sin, arguing, rightly, that your father being a millionaire does not make you a millionaire.
Though both guesstimations are wrong.

For as shown (and the Church fathers were given proof from their own Christian investigators, that) the body in the shroud of Turin, which is believed to be the body of Christ after the so-called crucifixion, was “not a dead body.”
Even the Gospels as shown in 
Jesus-redundant no ransom proves that Jesus was not killed on the cross.
Hence we have

“St. Paul had thought of and adopted the doctrine of Jesus Christ having died on the Cross and being resurrected afterwards, and this became the confirmed doctrine of the Christian Church.
But the investigations made about the imprints of Christ’s body on the Shroud put the Church in difficulties.
Pope John XXIII had made a proclamation on 30 June 1960, which was printed in an issue of the Vatican newspaper, Osservator Romano dated 2nd July 1960, under the title “Complete Salvation through the Blood of Jesus Christ,” in which the Pope informed and directed all the Catholic Bishops to believe and to propagate that the complete salvation of the human race lies through the blood of Jesus Christ, and that the death of Jesus Christ is not essential for this purpose.” (M.A. Faruqui, The Crumbling of the Cross, pp. 98-109. Emp. added).
This is Papal’s verbal gymnastics. How can salvation be through the “blood” of Jesus Christ when there was no “blood” of Jesus Christ? and Christianity stands on the foundation of the “blood” of Jesus Christ –of “inherited sin” and vicarious atonement?
Note well, that “salvation of the human race lies through the blood of Jesus Christ” is the Pope’s/Christian’s teaching; it is NOT God’s teaching; it is NOT Jesus’ teaching. (See Jesus-redundant no ransom).

Contrary to Christians claim. The Gospel of John chapter 3 verse 16 that says: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son that who-soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” is NOT about Jesus dying for sins.

When taken in its context, from verses 2-15, it shows that Jesus was having a conversation with Nicodemus who concluded that from his miracles Jesus could only be a man from God.
Jesus answered that man must undergo spiritual birth before he can see the kingdom of God. Jesus then compared himself to the brass serpent Moses lifted up in the wilderness; which serpent had the power to preserve the life of those bitten by a snake–(Numbers 21:9), for “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up” –the allusion being, as the serpent had power to preserve life of the afflicted on account of their belief on it, likewise, Jews who believed in his (Jesus’) miracles and accept him as a prophet from God–(John 8:28)–would also be saved: “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life”–(John 3:14-15).
Then came the verse of John 3:16 which, when expressed in the context of this discussion would convey the full meaning of:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son the power to perform miracles that whosoever believeth in him to be from God through these works of miracles should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Miracles were necessary because the people believed only in miracles: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe” –(John 4:48).

To infer that John 3:16 is about crucifixion is to inject a meaning that is alien to the subject.
If Jesus came to die for sins and for him to pray pitifully as if he was sweating “great drops of blood” to be spared from this glory and to indict God as having forsaken him: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”–(Matthew 26:36-44; 27:46; Luke 22:44); this must be the blackest degree of disgrace exampled by a son of God (and by God as Christians say Jesus is God) in Scriptural history -the “Mother” of all disgraces.
Not even Jonah in the whale’s belly made such a grotesque and ignominious expression as that of the Christian’s God and Son of God but rather prayed to God–(Jonah 2:1-10).
Even the 1400’s Viennese Jews behaved more honorably than the Christian’s God and Son of God, choosing to die in the Christian inferno than desecrate their Holy Sheema and kiss the useless and unGodly crucifix.
(In Vienna, “hundreds of Jews were burned alive in 1421 for refusing to convert to Christianity,” Toronto Star, Sat; Sept; 8, 2007; p. AA2; Pontiff shows…by Tracy Wilkinson).

Muslims who have apostatized from Islam because they saw Christ in a dream and thinking that Christianity leads to heaven, while you are alive you have the grand opportunity to return to Allāh/Islam.
Even if you do not want to observe any of the tenets of Islam you should not hold in worship anyone but Allāh. There is no religion superior to, or equal with, Islam. Islam is superior to all other religions.

The Church doctrines of: 
Jesus as Trinity (which puts God into the belly of a woman He created and brings Him out her vagina and had the Jews circumcised Him is gross blasphemy, condemned by the Bible itself); 
Jesus as God (and there is no place in the Bible where Jesus says I am God);
Jesus as Son of God (and begetting/fatherhood, as Christians say Jesus is “begotten” Son of God, requires the union of sperm and ovum and attributes the animal function of sex to God; and Jesus is only “CALLED” son of God)”;
inherited sin (which attributes injustice to God of Him putting Adam’s sin onto fetuses/babies and for some 5,000 years now and worldwide and will do so to the Resurrection)
and vicarious atonement (which attributes more injustice to God of Him putting everyone’s sin onto Jesus, and makes God complicit in the murder of Jesus)
are NOT Divine revelations or taught by Jesus.

These doctrines are blasphemy and lead into hell-fire; as Christ says: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath NEVER forgiveness but is in danger of ETERNAL DAMNATION”–(Mark 3:29).
And damnation is Hell! which is the “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched;” the “furnace of fire” in which there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–(Matt. 10:28; 18:8; Mark 9:43; Matt. 23:14, 33; 13:42. Those who do not have teeth shall bear it on their gums).

The Divine truth is Jesus was only a prophet of God sent wholly and solely only for Jews and
           “There is no God but Allāh;
Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh!”


  1. Ency. Brit. 15th. Edn; Vol. 4; Art and iconography, p. (501) 502.
  2. Jesus was of “red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest”–(Bokhari Vol. 4 #648). The Prophet is reported as saying that Jesus would return as a “just ruler”–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 425, 656). Seems this return of Jesus is metaphorical as in the case of Elias who returned as John the Baptist–(Luke 1:17; Matt. 11:11-14; 17:10-13). The Prophet described Jesus having “red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest” –(Bokhari Vol. 4 #648). And also as “brown” with “lank” hair–(Bokhari Vol. 4, #649). Perhaps this “brown” Jesus would be a Muslim of colored descent, who will have the disposition of the Israelite Jesus: one who would reform the Muslims that have lapsed from the practice of Islam.
  3. The Prophet Mohammad was white-skinned and straight-haired:
    -A man came inquiring from the companions of the Prophet who was there leaning on his arm; the man said, “Who amongst you is Muhammad…We replied, “This WHITE man reclining on his arm”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #63. See also Vol. 4, #766-767 that speak about the “whiteness” of the prophet’s arms and legs).
    -The Prophet was straight-haired; Salim said he heard from his father “that Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) assumed Ihram (garment for Hajj) with his hair MATTED TOGET-HER” (This seems to show that the Prophet braided his hair–Bokhari Vol. 2, #613; see also #783). “Allāh’s Apostle used to let his hair HANG DOWN…Then Allāh’s Apostle PARTED his hair”–(Bokhari Vol. 4, #758; Vol. 7, #799-800).
    -The Prophet also had his hair cut SHORT: “I cut SHORT the hair of Allāh’s Apostle with a long blade”–(Bokhari Vol. 2, # 787).
  1. Allāh tells us in his Qur’an 9:30 that “son of God” belief is paganism. To which Muhammad Ali notes: “when St. Paul saw that the Jews would on no account accept Jesus Christ as a messenger of God, he introduced the pagan doctrine of son-ship of God into the Christian religion, so that it might become more acceptable to the pagans.”

Maurice Bucaille states: “As far as the decades following Jesus’s mission are concerned, it must be understood that events did not at all happen in the way they have been said to have taken place and that Peter’s arrival in Rome no way laid the foundations for the Church. On the contrary, from the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo-Christianity;” and


“Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christianity that asserts that God is one in essence but three in “person,” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Sheema of the Old Testament: “Hear. O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them…..The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being.…The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th. Century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers) the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since”–(Ency. Brit. 15th Ed. Vol. Vol. X, art; Trinity, p. 126. Emphasis added.

“A council of the clergy was held at Nicaea, in 325 A.D. which council confirmed the doctrine of trinity…The clergy have ever held to this senseless God-dishonoring doctrine…If you ask a clergyman what is meant by the trinity he says: “That is mystery.” He does not know, and no one else knows, because it is false. Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil”–(Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 313, quoting the “creed of the Church of England.”

  1. M. A. Faruqui notes in his revealing book The Crumbling of the Cross, pp. 109-110. “The Christian Church had caused a General Council of the Church dignitaries to be appointed in A.D. 325 in which certain doctrines were made to be the foundation of the Christian Church, and belief therein was made essential for one to be Christian. This is known as the Nicene Creed. Under this, the confirmed doctrine of Atonement may be explained as follows:
    (i) Adam (and Eve) committed a Sin, and this Sin was inherited by their descendants.
    (ii) The attribute of “Justice” in God demanded that a sin must be punished, for the wage of Sin is death.
    (iii) God sent his son Jesus Christ to this world, so that he may die on the Cross an “accursed” death, and after spending some time in Hell, atone for the Sins of the human race, and then be resurrected again.”

Reason would dictate that human invention cannot give life in heaven. Whereas these Christians say God sent His SON to die for sins, according to Christians who believe Jesus is God GOD sent Himself to die for sins. Ask yourself: “How can I go to heaven by following doctrines God did not reveal?” To have one man (moreover an innocent man) killed for the crime of another is a bizarre sense of “justice;” and to say that God did this is blasphemy of the highest order.

Regarding the Christian’s doctrines of inherited sin and vicarious atonement; even their invention is lopsided. The Bible says: “Adam was NOT deceived BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION”–(1Tim. 2:14; Genesis 3:6, 12). Since Eve/woman was the transgressor sin should have been passed on through Eve’s/ woman’s ovum. (And arguably, God should have sent his “only begotten” daughter to die for this non-existent sin).

Hardly surprising then that Christian Fathers view woman as “the devil’s gate-way” as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 73.

““Do you know,” says Tertullian, when addressing Women, “that you are each Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt, of necessity, must live too. You are the devil’s gate-way; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the Divine Law; you destroyed as easily God’s image.”…She is “the organ of the devil,” “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” “the poisonous asp,” “the malice of the dragon.” These are some of the blessings that Woman received from persons of exalted position in the Church, such as St. Bernard, St. Anthony, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, and St. Paul.” (For more rabid and brutal misogyny in the Bible see Christianity-women).

It may be said that if one can die for the sin of others then one can take food, medication, and laxative to free others of hunger, ailment, and constipation –VICARIOUS REFRESHMENT.