{"id":215,"date":"2015-02-25T22:59:21","date_gmt":"2015-02-25T22:59:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/azmi.co\/cust\/ngba-wp\/?page_id=215"},"modified":"2023-03-14T02:01:05","modified_gmt":"2023-03-14T02:01:05","slug":"jesus-son-of-god","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/?page_id=215","title":{"rendered":"Jesus-son of God"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the name of All\u0101h,<\/span>
\nthe Beneficent, the Merciful.<\/span>
\nPeace and Blessings of All\u0101h on Mohammad.<\/span>
\nDEDICATED TO<\/span>
\nAll\u0101h\u2013the Glorious and the High,<\/span>
\nLord of the worlds<\/span>
\nAND TO<\/span>
\nMohammad\u2013who brought the world<\/span>
\nto our feet and eternity to our arms<\/span>.<\/span><\/span>
\n*<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0JESUS\u2013SON OF GOD<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>(Considering that the Bible and Qur’an show that everything in creation is a word of God. See<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Jesus-Trinity, word of God<\/a><\/span>). If Jesus is son of God because he is termed “word” of God, as one Christian asserts, then even a baboon is “son of God”)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

God is a Spirit\u2013(John 4:24). Fatherhood (begetting, as Jesus is hailed \u201cbegotten\u201d son of God)<\/span> requires the union of sperm and ovum. Even if Spirit can reproduce with human, Mary was not the consort\/wife of God so that her son, Jesus, should be crowned \u201cson of God”. As Jesus was NO literal son of God.
\nWhat kind of \u201cson of God\u201d was Jesus?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Isaiah 7:14 states that a child will be born to a “virgin”. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din reveals in his book The Sources of Christianity<\/em> (p. 37):
\n“The Gospel of St. Matthew no doubt makes the birth of Jesus a fulfillment of a prophecy by Isaiah (7:14) which it quotes in the following words: \u201cBehold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us\u201d (Matthew 1:23).
\n<\/span><\/span>But the oldest manuscripts of Isaiah do not read \u201cvirgin,\u201d but \u201cyoung woman.\u201d And the original is not \u201cshall conceive,\u201d but \u201cis with child\u201d \u2013i.e. had already conceived. Moreover, it does not state that \u201cthey shall call\u201d his name Emmanuel or Immanuel, but \u201cthou shalt,\u201d it being a command to King Ahaz so to call a child about to be born; which child, as an encouragement to the King, Isaiah prophesied would be a boy, and therefore a sign of good luck. And the Child was called \u2013Jesus.
\n\u201cThe fact that in the later versions of the Hebrew, such as the Septuagint and Vulgate, the word used for \u2018young woman\u2019 has been altered into \u2018virgin\u2019 is very significant. The misrepresentation of Isaiah\u2019s reference to a young woman, who, at the time the prophet spoke, was about to bear a child\u2026is clear evidence of an attempt to connect a presumably real Jesus with the Sun-God,\u201d all of whose other incarnations came from a Virgin Mother.\u201d (pp. 37-38. This material can also be read with other texts at<\/span> Christianity-is paganism<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus is NOT \u201cGod with us\u201d; only his NAME means \u201cGod with us\u201d: \u201ca virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his NAME Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the\u00a0 evil and choose the good\u201d\u2013(Isaiah 7:14-15.<\/span> Though there is no place in the Gospel where Jesus is addressed as \u201cImmanuel.\u201d (My name meaning \u201cmoon\u2019 does not mean I am a moon).
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 If Jesus is God, Christians must be the biggest mocking-stock in the intellectual world for espousing that God needs to eat butter and honey to be able to differentiate between evil and good. If Jesus is \u201cGod with us\u201d Satan must the one who \u201csent\u201d Jesus and the one to whom Jesus \u201cascend(ed).\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul taught Jesus had a human father:
\n(a) \u201cTherefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne\u201d\u2013(Acts 2:30);
\n(b) \u201cConcerning his Son Jesus Christ\u2026which was made of the SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH\u201d\u2013(Romans 1:3);
\n(c) \u201cRemember that Jesus Christ of the SEED OF DAVID\u201d\u2013(2 Timothy 2:8). And \u201cseed\u201d is sperm, and \u201caccording to the flesh\u201d is sexual intercourse. (That Mary would conceive of the Holy Ghost-Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35; <\/span><\/span>see\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Jesus-had s-x with his mother<\/span>).<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n (John Dominic Crossan in his book The Essential Jesus\u2013Original Sayings and Earliest Images<\/em>, Published by Harper San Francisco, p.34, shows a baptizing scene with John the Baptist with Jesus as a young child). (For Jesus birth in the Qur\u2019an see Jesus birth in Bible & Qur\u2019an<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>).
\nThus, we have Jesus as being of doubtful\/forged “virgin”\/ “immaculate” conception. So what kind of Son of God is Jesus?<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Gospel of John \u2013chapter 3 verse 16\u2013 refers to Jesus as \u201cbegotten Son\u201d of God. But the word \u201cbegotten\u201d has been removed from the RSV Bible and the Good News<\/em> Bible.
\nIf the Bible is \u201call\u201d word of God, as Christians would have the world believe, why remove the word \u201cbegotten\u201d? Because to \u201cbeget\u201d requires sexual intercourse, and in this case it implies that God had sex with Mary (God forbid!). So the RSV and Good News<\/em> Bibles, wisely, performed “abortion” on\/of \u201cbegotten\u201d.
\nAs Jesus is NOT God\u2019s \u201cbegotten\u201d son, what kind of son of God was Jesus?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Mathew 3:13-17 says that after Jesus was baptized (God needs to be baptized?), \u201cA VOICE from HEAVEN (came), saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased\u201d.
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Is this \u201cA\u201d voice God\u2019s or Satan\u2019s in his vow to lead Christians astray by having them give relations to God, as he later had the Church Fathers give God three heads -Trinity?.
\nAccording to Jesus, speaking two chapters after his baptism, this \u201cA\u201d voice is definitely not God\u2019s voice. Speaking about God, Jesus said: \u201cYe have neither heard his voice AT ANY TIME, nor seen his shape\u201d\u2013(John 5:37).\u00a0 <\/span>As no one has ever heard God\u2019s voice at anytime (which also proves that Jesus is not God),<\/span> Jesus being God\u2019s \u201cbeloved\u201d son is dubious.
\nThus, so far we have, Jesus is NOT \u201cbegotten\u201d Son of God and is a dubious son of God.\u00a0 So what kind of \u201cSon\u201d of God was Jesus?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Bible God has a jungle of sons, and even daughters:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

-Adam is son of God\u2013(Luke 3:38);
\n-Solomon is son of God\u2013(1 Chronicles 28:6);
\n-David is begotten son of God\u2013(Psalm 2:7);
\n-Israel is son of God, even His \u201cfirst-born\u201d\u2013(Exodus 4:22);
\n-All the sons of God shouted for joy\u2013(Job 38:7);
\n-Ephraim is \u201cfirstborn\u201d of God\u2013(Jeremiah 31:9);
\n-Children of Israel are sons of God\u2013(Hosea 1:10);
\n-Righteous are sons of God\u2013(Romans\u00a0 8:14; 1 John 3:1-2. As women also are righteous, logically, they are daughters of God<\/span>);
\n-Peacemakers (which may include atheists and women) are children of God\u2013(Matthew 5:9);
\n-Jesus empowered others to become sons of God\u201d\u2013(John 1:12);
\n-Seems Satan also is son of God\u2013(Job 1:6);
\n-Sons of God also came and took human daughters for wives\/sex: \u201cAnd it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God<\/i> saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives all of which they chose\u201d\u2013(Genesis 6:1-2. <\/span>The origin of polygamy and its unbridled range).
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0Evidently, <\/span>the above shows that <\/span>\u2018son of God\u2019 is not unique to Jesus nor is \u201cson of God\u2019 a physical relation.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To recap. It is shown that Jesus is NOT \u201cbegotten\u201d Son of God and is a dubious son of God.\u00a0 So what kind of \u201cSon\u201d of God was Jesus?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding Mark 1:1 referring to Jesus as \u201cthe Son of God\u201d, the Gideons New American Standard Bible<\/i>, 1985, and Good News Bible<\/i>; say, respectively, in foot-note: \u201cMany mss. (short for manuscripts<\/em>)<\/span> omit, the Son of God,\u201d and \u201cSome manuscripts do not have the Son of God.\u201d
\nAnd Luke who had \u201cPERFECT understanding of ALL things from the VERY FIRST\u201d says Jesus is only \u201cCALLED\u201d son of God: He states in Luke 1:3 and 35:\u00a0\u201cThat holy thing (Jesus) which shall be born of thee (Mary) shall be \u201cCALLED\u201d the Son of God\u201d.
\n<\/span>Jesus is NOT son of God; \u00a0Jesus is only \u201cCALLED\u201d son of God.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That \u2018s<\/span>on of God<\/span>\u2019 is <\/span>an <\/span>only an <\/span>epithet of honor<\/span> is <\/span>further solidified<\/span> in the following<\/span><\/span>: <\/span>\u201cthe Lord came unto Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David\u2026.I will be<\/span><\/span> his father, <\/span><\/span>and<\/span><\/span> he shall be<\/span><\/span> my son<\/span><\/span>\u201d\u2013(2 Samuel 7:4-5, 14).\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>Jesus was only a metaphorical son of God. And a METAPHORICAL son\u00a0\u00a0CANNOT die for LITERAL sin(s).
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0And as \u201cson\u201d of God is needed to die for Adam\u2019s (or original \/inherited) sin, and as there is NO son of God\u00a0THERE IS NO VICARIOUS ATONEMENT!<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As noted above, 2 Samuel 7:4-5, 14 states: \u201cthe Lord came unto Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?\u2026.I will be his father, <\/i>and he shall be my son<\/i>\u201d.
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 God saying \u201cI will be his father, <\/i>and he shall be my son<\/i>\u201d<\/span>, this promise does not refer to Christ, as Christians claim \u2013Christ did not build any \u201chouse\u201d for God. \u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0 This promise refers to Solomon: \u201cAnd behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David, my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne\u00a0 in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name\u2013(1 Kings 5:5).
\n\u201cAnd David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God: But the word of the Lord came to me, saying\u2026..Behold, a son shall be born to thee\u2026for his name shall be SOLOMON\u2026He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father<\/em><\/span>\u201d\u2013(1 Chronicles 22:7-10).
\n\u201cAnd he (the Lord) said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father<\/em><\/span>\u201d\u2013(1 Chronicles 28:9).<\/span><\/p>\n

That Jesus is \u201cSon of God\u201d, All\u0101h informs us that the Christian belief of Son of God is an imitation of paganism: \u201cAnd the Jews say: Ezra is the son of All\u0101h; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of All\u0101h. These are the words of their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. All\u0101h\u2019s curse be on them! How they are turned away!\u201d\u2013(Qur\u2019an 9:30).
\n<\/span>Muhammad Ali notes:
\n\u201cWe are here told that the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was the son of God was borrowed from earlier pagan people. Recent research has established the fact beyond all doubt. In fact, 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 sonship of God into the Christian religion, so that it might become more acceptable to the pagans.\u201d (See <\/span>Allah-and Jesus or Paul<\/span>).<\/span><\/a>
\nIt is common knowledge that there were legions of Sons of God before Jesus \u2013such as Horus, Osiris, Mithra.<\/span> And also many \u201cMother Goddess\u201d before Mary. (More on this later).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted above in Qur\u2019an 9:30 All\u0101h says Jews say, \u201cEzra is the son of All\u0101h.\u201d<\/span> Critics say the Qur\u2019an is wrong, that Jews did not regard Ezra as \u201cson of God.\u201d
\nBut in their commentaries Muhammad Ali, Yusuf Ali and Malik Ghulam Farid note that there was a sect of Jews who revered Ezra as son of God.
\nAlso, Son of God does not necessarily mean they regard Ezra as a physical son of God, only that they followed him blindly. This is made clear by the next verse of the Qur\u2019an (9:31) which states about Christians: \u201cThey take their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides All\u0101h, and (also) the Messiah, son of Mary\u2026.\u201d
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 To which Muhammad Ali points out:
\n\u201cwhen this verse was revealed, \u2018Adi ibn Hatim, a convert from Christianity, asked the Holy Prophet as to the significance of this verse, for, he said, we did not worship our doctors of law and monks. The Holy Prophet\u2019s reply was: Was it not that the people considered lawful what their priests declared to be lawful, though it was forbidden by God. Hatim replied in the affirmative. That, the Prophet said, was what the verse meant (Tirmidhi. 44:9)\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted above there were many Sons of God of which Mithra was one, and also more than one Mother Goddess. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his revealing book the Sources of Christianity (the following material on Mithra and Mother Goddess is also noted in<\/span><\/em> Christianity-is paganism)<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

About Mithra it is stated:<\/span>
\n<\/span>\u201cMithraism came from Persia, where it seems to have been flourishing for about six hundred years, the cult reaching Rome about 70 B.C. It spread through the Empire, and extended to Great Britain. Remains of Mithraic monuments have been discovered at York, Chester and other places. Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin.<\/em> He traveled far and wide; he had twelve disciples; he died in the service of humanity. He was buried, but rose again from the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing<\/em>.<\/span> His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox \u2013Christmas and Easter. He was called Saviour, and sometimes figured as a Lamb. People were initiated into his cult through baptism. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance. These statements may excite surprise in the mind of the reader of to-day; he may be disposed to doubt their genuineness, as while on one side he reads the story of the Jesus of the Church, in the legend of Mithra on the other Mithraism has left no traces in the world, although it was so powerful in the third century A.D. that, had it not been suppressed in Rome and Alexandria by the Christians with physical force, as has been admitted by St. Jerome, it would have left no chance for the flourishing of Christianity; and that it died only when most of its legends became incorporated in the simple faith of Jesus, and the Church lore fully saturated with Mithraic colours,<\/em><\/span> so much so that Tertullian had to admit the fact, though in a way befitting his position. He says that the learned in his days considered Mithraism and Christianity identical in all but name<\/em>.<\/span>\u201d \u00a0St. Jerome and other Early Fathers became puzzled at the similarity existing between the two faiths, but their ingenuity ascribed it to the machinations of the Devil to mock their faith.\u201d (Emphasis\/Color<\/span> added-NGBA)<\/span><\/p>\n

And about the Madonna with Child:<\/span>
\n<\/span>\u201cWe read nothing of the Madonna and the Child, either in the evangelical record or in the writings of Paul and other apostles. The conception, most assuredly, came from Alexandria to the Western world, where the Mother Goddess with the Child Redeemer Horus had been honoured centuries before the Christian Era, and worshipped under the names of \u201cOur Lady,\u201d \u201cQueen of Heaven,\u201d \u201cMother Goddess\u201d and so forth \u2013words that were afterwards used in reference to Mary, the Mother Goddess.<\/span>
\nIsis was not the only Virgin Mother worshipped in the olden days.\u00a0 Osiris had also been believed to be born of Neith, the Virgin of the World\u2026The sacred groves of Germany exhibited the image of the Goddess Hertha, a Virgin with a Child in her arms, in the old Teutonic days. She also gave birth to a child that was of Immaculate conception. She was impregnated by the Heavenly Spirit.<\/span>
\nFrigga conceived of the All-father, Odin, bore a son, Balder of Scandinavia, called the Healer and Saviour of mankind.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Virgin Mother suckling her Child is a common figure on the Mithraic monuments. So are other legends of these gods being born in a cave, which have been reported from Guatemala, the Antilles and other places in Central America.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe sign of the Cross also is not of Christian origin. It does not date from the crucifixion. Clement, in his list of Christian symbols, does not make mention of it. Constantine saw the Cross in his vision, as he says, and took it as a symbol of the faith. But what he saw in the vision he must have seen also in a normal condition with his waking eye, for the Cross was the sign of life in the Pagan symbolism. I saw an ancient Egyptian cross in July when I visited Alexandria, in the Municipal Museum in the town. Curiously enough, the cross in Christendom signifies the same as did the Egyptian cross \u2013the sign of new life brought by the crucifixion.<\/span><\/em> In Ireland a similar cross has been discovered, with a crucified effigy, but it is the effigy of a Persian prince and not that of the Nazarene, as the head of the crucified bears a Parthian coronet, and not the crown of thorns; which identifies it with the Mithraic cult, originally from Persia.<\/em> <\/span>It left many other signs in Ireland and Cheshire. (Color added).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cRead the history of the Early Fathers, and you are more and more convinced that while the Church was using sword and fire in destroying every trace and memory of Sun-worship in its original form \u2013as in the burning of the Alexandrian Library and the killing of Hypatia\u2013the great teacher of the Sun-worship cult\u2013 i<\/span><\/span>t<\/span> was taking everything and anything of the heathen days into its own teachings and traditions in order to make the new faith popular. Fish was taken as a Christian symbol before the introduction of the Cross<\/span><\/em>\u2026.The Gospel cannot explain the why and how of the Fish symbol, excepting that Jesus often ate fish. But the sun-scripture is the real explanation. The sun passes the Zodiacal sign Pisces \u2013the Fish\u2013<\/span> in February, and if the date of the Epiphany is in February, Christ, as a Sun-God, must be symbolized by the Fish<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The evidence that the Church, as built by the priests of the dark mediaeval days, owes everything to the Pagan world, and not in the sacred name under which it passes, is so overwhelmingly preponderating in nature that one becomes compelled to say with full justification, in the words of the Archbishop of York, that the Church repels<\/span>. If the laity has realized that in their worship in the Church they are worshipping only the Sun-God, and keeping up the tradition of the Pagan cult, will they not resent it? No wonder the pews have become empty, and the clergy have no chance but to address empty benches.\u201d (The Sources of Christianity. <\/em>These quotes are also in\u00a0<\/span>Christianity-is paganism<\/span><\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Today, it is an established verity that Church theology was only an assimilation of Paganism<\/em><\/span><\/strong>; what an irony of fate that those who called others heathens should have turned out to be heathens themselves in their beliefs!”<\/em><\/span><\/strong>-(Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London<\/em>, 1926. KK. was responding to misstatements on Islam. Emphasis\/color added).<\/span><\/p>\n

In \u201cThe Sources of Christianity<\/em>\u201d Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din has detailed the pagan sources of Christianity, including Easter, and Jesus\u2019 Passion Play which mimics that of the Babylonian God, Baal, who preceded Jesus by more than a thousand years. This book can be had from www.muslim.org<\/a>.<\/span> This Passion Play of Baal and Jesus is noted in Christianity-is paganism.<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Nowadays, Christians are tripping over one another to explain the meaning of \u201cSon of God \u2013to make it palatable to an educated world.<\/span> But their concoction is a camouflage to shield the truth from the unschooled. Read Matthew 1:20 which speaks about Mary\u2019s pregnancy: \u201cfor that which is conceived in her <\/span><\/span>IS OF<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>THE HOLY GHOST<\/span><\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>plus the early Fathers aping the pagan\u2019s sons of God whose mothers were impregnated by the gods and the conclusion is crystal clear: Jesus was regarded as a physical Son of God<\/span> \u2013as <\/span>Justin Martyr is noted as saying: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt having reached the Devil\u2019s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ (the Son of God) <\/span><\/span>he set the heathen poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get man to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same character as the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove\u2026.By declaring the Logos, the first begotten of God, Our Master Jesus, to be born of a virgin, without any human mixture, we (Christians) say no more in this than what you (Pagans) say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.<\/span> For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign to Jove.<\/span> (Just as the Bible assigns a legion of\u00a0<\/i>so<\/span>n<\/span><\/span><\/a>s\u00a0<\/span>to God)<\/i>\u2026.As to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be no more than man<\/span><\/span> (note well, it is Christians who \u201callow\u201d Jesus to be \u201cmore than man\u201d)<\/i>, yet the title of the son of God is very justifiable upon account of his wisdom<\/span> (then this \u201cwisdom\u201c should make Einstein at least super son of God)<\/i>, considering that you (Pagans) have your Mercury in worship under the title of the Word, a messenger of God\u2026.As to his (Jesus) being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that\u2026.if Jupiter could send a parcel of sons out of virgin mothers; the Father in heaven assuredly could do the same at least in our case.\u201d\u201d<\/span>(True He could, but He did not). <\/i>(Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity.<\/i> p. 37. KK quotes from Adol, I. Ch. xxii. (Emphasis in brackets added).\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>Perhaps Matthew 1:20 noted above, which speaks about Mary\u2019s pregnancy: \u201cfor that which is conceived in her <\/span><\/span>IS OF THE HOLY GHOST<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>was a later insertion in the Gospel to accord with the pagan doctrine of Divine fatherhood to give credibility to Jesus being son of God.
\n(For more on Jesus and Christians falsehood see<\/span> <\/span>Home<\/span> from item #5).\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the name of All\u0101h, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Peace and Blessings of All\u0101h on Mohammad. DEDICATED TO All\u0101h\u2013the Glorious and the High, Lord of the worlds AND TO Mohammad\u2013who brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms. * \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-215","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=215"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6240,"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/215\/revisions\/6240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}