{"id":6234,"date":"2023-03-14T01:50:12","date_gmt":"2023-03-14T01:50:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/?page_id=6234"},"modified":"2023-03-14T01:50:12","modified_gmt":"2023-03-14T01:50:12","slug":"jesus-trinity-word-of-god","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/nogodbutallah.org\/?page_id=6234","title":{"rendered":"JESUS-TRINITY, WORD OF GOD"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the name of All\u0101h,<\/span>
\n the Beneficent, the Merciful.<\/span>
\n Peace and Blessings of All\u0101h on Mohammad.<\/span>
\n DEDICATED TO<\/span>
\n All\u0101h\u2013the Glorious and the High,<\/span>
\n Lord of the worlds<\/span>
\n AND TO<\/span>
\n Mohammad\u2013who brought the world<\/span>
\n to our feet and eternity to our arms
\n<\/span>*<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0JESUS-TRINITY<\/span><\/span>
\nAs they delineate between Hell and Heaven, cardinal doctrines of a religion are to be clearly expressed in Divine Scripture; they are not to be left to the function of interpretation.
\nUnlike the cardinal doctrines of Islam \u2013Unity\/Purity of God, Prayer, Zakaat\/Charity, Fasting and Hajj\u2013<\/span> that are clearly expressed in the Qur\u2019an and conducive to reason and observed by Prophet Mohammad.
\nThe cardinal doctrines of Christianity \u2013Trinity, original\/ inherited sin and vicarious atonement\u2013<\/span> are not expressed in the Bible or conducive to reason or observed by Jesus. These doctrines are assumptions.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the verse of 1 John 5:7 which states: \u201cFor there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one\u201d. These are NOT the words of Jesus.<\/span> Significantly, of what do they \u201cbear record\u201d; and where does God say this?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted on the Internet<\/i>, 1 John 5:7 was conceived hundreds of years AFTER Christ and is now aborted from some Bibles, while some Bible is said to have a\u00a0 footnote stating that the verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts. <\/i>You can read about this on Wikipedia.org, article An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.<\/i>
\nThe Gideons<\/i> New American Standard Bible, 1985, and the Good News<\/i> Bible do not carry this verse of 1 John 5:7.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Even if there was Trinity, Jesus would NOT be part of it; as noted Jesus is only \u201cCALLED\u201d son of God \u2013\u201cSon\u201d would have to be an actual son of God, and may even be Satan\u2013(Genesis 6:1-2; Job 1:6; 38:7).\u00a0<\/span> Also, for 9 months and 33 years, at least, Jesus was in his mother\u2019s belly and preaching on earth and lying in a tomb rather than being in heaven \u201cbear(ing) record\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted above, Jesus was wholly and solely a Jewish tribal prophet. How then did Jesus become one in a Trinity and dying to free the world of Adam\u2019s sin?
\nAside from the fact that Hindus, Romans and Africans have Trinity which predate Christian Trinity.\u00a0The Christian Trinity was invented by the Church 324 years AFTER Christ. Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/i> explains:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNeither 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: \u201cHear. O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord\u201d (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 \u2013i.e. the Holy spirit whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: \u201cGo therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit\u201d (Matt. 28:19. As shown later Matthew 28:19 is a forgery in the Bible-NGBA<\/i><\/span>) and in the apostolic benediction: \u201cThe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all\u201d (II Corinthians. 13:14. Corinthians is the word of PAUL not word of God or Jesus-NGBA<\/i><\/span>). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of Trinity. (Note: it is the New Testament that \u201cestablished the basis\u201d for Trinity, not Jesus\u00a0 or God-NGBA<\/i><\/span>).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 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. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as \u201cpersons\u201d (modalism). It was not until the 4th. century that the distinctness of\u00a0\u00a0 the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.<\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is \u201cof the same essence [homoousios] as the Father,\u201d 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\u2026.the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has\u00a0 maintained ever since<\/i><\/span>\u201d\u2013(15th Ed; Vol. X, art; Trinity, p. 126. Emphasis\/color<\/span> <\/i>added).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Trinity and original\/inherited sin and vicarious atonement are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ.
\n\u00a0 In trying to explain Trinity Christians are trying to explain the non-existent. In trying to Divinize Trinity Christians are trying to legitimize profanity.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Since Trinity needs a \u201cSon\u201d of God and as there is NO actual \u201cson\u201d of God then ipso facto<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0THERE IS NO TRINITY!<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>
\nAs \u201cson\u201d of God is needed to die for Adam\u2019s (or original \/inherited) sin, and as there is NO son of God THERE IS NO VICARIOUS ATONEMENT!<\/b>
\n<\/span>
\n(For John 1:1-5 which says: \u201cIn the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God\u201d,<\/span> this is said to have been taken from Philo who lived and wrote a hundred years before the writer of this Gospel whoever he was (no one knows who John is), this is dealt with next<\/span><\/span>).\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16, as noted above, the word \u201cbegotten\u201d (as it implies sexual intercourse between God and Mary)<\/span> has been, rightly, excised from the RSV Bible. This verse which is the bedrock of the edifice of Christianity is found only in John. The other Gospel writers are quiet as Church mice on this pivotal Christian headstone. Luke, who claims to have \u201cperfect understanding of ALL things from the VERY FIRST\u201d (Luke 1:3) is as dead as a door nail on it.<\/span><\/p>\n

John 3:16 states:\u00a0 \u201cFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.\u201d
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 Christians hail this verse as proof of Jesus coming to die for the sin(s) of the world. (How Christians come to this conclusion is stupefying)<\/span>.
\nHaving a man, and an innocent man, beaten\/scourged, fixed to a \u201ccross\u201d, \u201clanced\u201d and killed\/murdered for the sinner is not \u201clove\u201d, it is crass cruelty and gross injustice (which are expected of tyrants and sadists. It is a gruesome sense of \u201clove\u201d<\/span>).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

John 3:16, when taken in its context from verse one shows Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus about miracles and alluding himself to the brass serpent in Moses\u2019 time which serpent God gave\/instilled power to preserve life\u2013(Numbers 21:9). Giving the proper meaning of John 3:16 of:\u00a0
\n<\/span>\u201cFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son the power to perform miracles<\/i><\/span> that whosoever believeth in him to be from God through these works of miracles <\/i><\/span>should not perish, but have everlasting life.\u201d
\n<\/span>\u00a0 Miracles were necessary because the people believed only in miracles: \u201cExcept ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe\u201d\u2013(John 4:48).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To infer that John 3:16 is about crucifixion is to inject a meaning that is alien to the subject. That Jesus is saying God \u201cgave\u201d him to be \u201ccrucified\u201d for sinners and for him to pray pitifully in the Garden of Gethsemane to be spared from this glory and to indict God as having \u201cforsaken\u201d him\u2013(Matthew 26:36-44; 27:46), this must be the blackest degree of disgrace and blasphemy exampled by a son of God in Scriptural history. (If Jesus is God, God prayed to and \u201cforsaken\u201d Himself)<\/span>.
\nAlso, Jesus praying to be spared from death also obliterates Christians\u2019 claim that Jesus gave his life willingly.<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted God gave\/instilled power in the brass serpent to preserve life\u2013Numbers 21:9.
\n-God also gave\/instilled power to the pool of Bethesda to cure (John 5:2-4);
\n-power to the river <\/span>Jordan<\/span> which healed Namaan-(2 Kings 5:9-14);
\n-power to <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Elisha’s dead bones which brought a dead man back to life-2 Kings 13:20-21);
\n-power to <\/span>Balaam\u2019s ass to speak to Balaam-(Numbers <\/span>22:28<\/span><\/span>, 30).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\nThus, God giving power to Jesus to perform miracles is not unique.<\/span>
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0Whereas Jesus, performed miracles through the power of God<\/i>\u2013(Luke 11:20; John 8:28, 11:42; Acts 2:22; Qur\u2019an 3:48). Others also performed miracles:<\/span>
\n-Moses transformed a stick into a serpent; Moses parted the river\u2013(Exodus 7:10; 14:21)<\/span>
\n-Elijah resurrected a child; and divided the river Jordan\u2013(1 Kings 17:17-23; 2 Kings 2:7-8)<\/span>
\n-Elisha parted the river Jordan; and resurrected a child\u2013(2 Kings 2:12-14; 2 Kings 4:32-36<\/span>
\n-Joshua made the sun and the moon stand still\u2013(Joshua 10:12-13)’
\n<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0A prophet performing miracles or making prophecies does not make him God or son of God; nor make him greater than other prophets. Such miracles and prophecies would reflect the greatness of All\u0101h God, through Whose power the prophet was able to perform the miracles and make the predictions.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted in the above quote from Britannica<\/i>, Trinity is based on Jesus telling his followers to preach in the \u201cname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\u201d\u2013(Matthew 28:19) but this verse as well as Mark 16:9-20, have been shown to be \u201cforgeries\u201d in the Bible.
\nAbout a hundred years ago Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din exposed it in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London,<\/i> (pp. 31-32):
\n\u201cThe concluding eleven verses of St. Mark-(16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew-(28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS (manuscripts). The fact was discovered by the first translator of the Bible into English and they made a marginal note in their version of the Bible which continued for some time.<\/span> But we do not find the said note in any of the copies now published by the said society (Foreign Mission Society).<\/em><\/span> Is it fair and honest to keep others in darkness as to the true value of the contents of the Bible?<\/span> The reader must know that concluding portion of St. Mark and the verse in St. Matthew are spurious and a subsequent addition.\u201d (Emphasis\/color added).<\/span><\/p>\n

That Matthew 28:19 is a forgery is shown even on the face of it. Jesus\u2019 mission was only to Jews and to the extent that he regards non-Jews \u201cdogs\u201d and \u201cswine\u201d not worthy of the Israelite \u201cbread\u201d and \u201cpearl\u201d and he even preached in parables to keep these \u201cdogs\u201d and \u201cswine\u201d ignorant and out of heaven.
\nThe claim that after the make-believe resurrection Jesus changed his mind and said to preach the gospel to all nations.\u00a0 This claim is far-fetched.
\nFor Jesus to declare that God sent him only to Jews, that he prayed only for Jews and that heaven lies in observance of the Mosaic Law until the arrival of the Comforter who will then guide into \u201call truth,\u201d and then for Jesus to turn around and say to preach to all nations the doctrines of Trinity and original\/inherited sin and vicarious atonement, this is not only a contradiction but an indictment that Jesus was not only grossly ignorant of his mission but that Jesus taught un-Godly doctrines (Trinity and original\/ inherited sin and vicarious atonement).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Even if Matthew 28:19 was not a forgery then Jesus\u2019 teaching to \u201call nations\u201d is that eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law until the arrival of the Comforter who will then guide into \u201call truth\u201d and will \u201cabide for ever.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

About Mark 16:9-20 which states that Jesus says to preach the Gospel to the world. The Gideon\u2019s, American New Standard Bible<\/i> (1985) states in footnote: \u201cSome of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9-20\u2026\u201d<\/span> (mss. stands for manuscripts).
\nAnd the Good News <\/i>Bible (1976) footnoted to chapter 16: \u201cSome manuscripts and ancient translations do not have this ending to the Gospel (verses 9-20).\u00a0<\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Revealingly. In the verses of Mark 16:19-20 Jesus tells his followers: \u201cHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.\u2026They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them\u201d\u2013(Mark 16:16-18).
\n<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Even if these verses were not \u201cforgeries\u201d it is doubtful sensible Christians (\u201cbaptized\u201d or not) would take up (un-milked) venomous snakes or drink a lethal dose of deadly poison to substantiate this assurance of their God\/son of God, Jesus.
\nIf taking up serpents and drinking deadly thing is metaphorical, as one Christian apologist tried to whitewash, then those \u201cthat believeth and is baptized\u201d must also be metaphorical. What is a metaphorical \u201cdeadly thing\u201d that one drinks?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To restate:
\nAs noted Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:9-20 are \u201cforgeries\u201d.\u00a0 And that Mark 1:1 referring to Jesus as \u201cthe Son of God\u201d, the Gideons <\/i>New American Standard Bible, 1985, and Good News<\/i> Bibles say, respectively, in footnote:\u00a0\u201cMany mss. omit, the Son of God<\/i>,\u201d<\/span> and \u201cSome manuscripts do not have <\/i>the Son of God\u201d.<\/span>
\nIsn\u2019t it telling a lie on God that He revealed\/inspired the forged words? Isn\u2019t it telling a lie on Jesus that he uttered the forged words? What manner of devotee(s) would make forgeries in his Book of God?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Instead of footnotes, dignity and maturity dictate that these misleading materials be removed from the Bible.
\nPerhaps Christian authorities are loathed to remove these alien materials because this would mean recalling the hundreds of thousands of Christian missionaries around the world who are trying to lure unschooled natives into worshipping Jesus Christ as God\/Son of God and vicarious atoner. The Christian Foreign Mission is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
\nWill Christians take the Divine route and remove these additions from the Bible and let the world know the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0JESUS-WORD OF GOD<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span>WHAT KIND OF “WORD” IS JESUS?<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span>
\nThe Gospel of John 1:1-5 states: \u201cIn the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.\u201d (There is\u00a0NO mention of the third party of the Trinity, the \u201cHoly Ghost\u201d).
\n<\/span>That the Word was \u201cwith God\u201d and the Word \u201cwas God\u201d is the same as saying God was with God.\u00a0 This is senseless. The word could not be with God and yet be God.<\/span>
\n(No wonder some Christians view Trinity<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0as a \u201csenseless God-dishonoring doctrine\u201d that \u201ccould have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Christians claim that \u201cWord\u201d in this statement of John 1:1-5 is Jesus. Apart from the fact that these are NOT the words of Jesus, NO ONE KNOWS WHO WROTE THE GOSPEL OF JOHN:
\n<\/span>\u201cThe Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as \u201cthe Disciple<\/span> whom Jesus loved<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u201d mentioned in John 21:24,[15]<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup>who is understood to be\u00a0John<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0son of Zebedee, one of Jesus\u2019\u00a0Twelve Apostles<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span> These identifications, however, are rejected by many modern\u00a0biblical scholars<\/span><\/span><\/a>.[1]<\/a>[16]<\/a>[Notes 5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called\u00a0John the Evangelist<\/span><\/span><\/a>, often out of convenience since the definitive name of the author is still debated.\u201d<\/span>
\nhttps:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gospel_of_John<\/span><\/a><\/span>
\nSuch is Christianity: Christians build their belief on anonymity of authorship and “forgeries” and crown it with Divine authority. And they feed these human-baked bits as Divine delicacy to an uneducated world.<\/span><\/p>\n

Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes:<\/span>
\n\u201cThe term\u00a0word,<\/em>\u00a0used in St. John, which stands for the Greek word\u00a0Logos<\/em>, is an in-adequate rendering. In all his writings Philo\u00a0speaks\u00a0of\u00a0Logos<\/em>,\u2013a\u00a0philosophic conception of later growth and a development of the \u201cIdea of Plato,\u201d in his theory of Emanation. It does not mean\u00a0Word<\/em>; it conveys\u00a0\u201cThought\u00a0as well\u00a0as\u00a0expression.\u201d Plato,\u00a0when dealing with the subject, spoke of something \u2013as the first thing in creation that may be styled \u201cReason or Wisdom\u201d\u2013 the first product of Herbert Spencer\u2019s \u201cFirst Intelligent Cause.\u201d<\/span>
\nNotably,\u00a0Philo \u201clived and wrote all this one hundred years before the writers, whosoever they may be, of that Gospel.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>(The Sources of Christianity<\/em>, pp. 76-77).<\/span><\/p>\n

All\u0101h God tells us in his Qur\u2019an: \u201cWhen the angels said: O Mary, surely Allah gives thee good news with\u00a0A WORD<\/u>\u00a0from Him\u00a0<\/em>(of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,\u00a0<\/em>worthy of regard in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are drawn nigh (to Allah)\u201d\u2013(Qur\u2019an 3:45).<\/span><\/span>
\nAs emphasized Jesus is \u201ca\u201d word,\u00a0NOT\u00a0<\/em>\u201cthe\u201d word, from All\u0101h.\u00a0 Jesus as \u201cword\u201d means \u201cpromise,\u201d as All\u0101h promised Mary a son\u2013(Qur\u2019an 3:45; Luke 1:26-32).<\/span>
\nThat Jesus is \u201cword\u201d of God is not unique to Jesus. There are others also who are \u201cword\u201d of God:<\/span><\/p>\n