Without the crucifixion and resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15, ‘King James Version’ translation)

The problem one has, is with the whole point of the crucifixion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it actually happened). What was it all for? What good did it do?

The Death

How does crucifixion kill you? According to the Bible, it seems you can just hang there indefinitely until you feel like “giving up the ghost” (i.e. dying). In actual fact you die of asphyxiation by drowning. Hanging by your arms makes it more and more difficult to expand your chest until you can no longer draw air into your lungs; You very slowly drown as the chest and abdominal muscles tire and fluid collects in the lungs. One of the reasons that the Romans would break the legs of the crucified was to speed up their death – they could not take any weight on their legs and the whole body was hanging by the arms.

( It should also be noted that the Romans probably tied the wrists to the cross, and nailed the hands on to make sure the victim could not pull his hands free. If nails were used with no rope, the weight of the body would simply rip the nails through the hands. It has been mentioned that the nails were usually placed between the Radius and Ulna bones in the forearm, as they could support the weight. Presumably it was both the combination of the ropes and nails that held the victim in place. Interesting that you never see Christian stigmatics showing rope marks on the wrist and nail marks on the fore-arms, and most images of Christ show him supported only by nails through the hand… ).

The four gospels all give different accounts of (among many other things) Jesus’ final words. Yet he would have hardly been able to suck in a lungful of air, let alone make any sort of grand last words.

The Sacrifice

Christians often tell you things such as  “The Lord sent his only son to die for me! How much more personal can you get?” and “he died for our sins” and so on. It seems that some people almost celebrate the awful death of Jesus. Was it really some great selfless sacrifice, for the benefit of a world of sinners?

So the story goes, Jesus died and this somehow absolved all of humanity’s sins, past, present and future. He then spent three days dead (some say he went to the underworld or Hell), came back to his physical body and then floated up to Heaven.

1. How was this a selfless sacrifice? He was marched up the hill by a bunch of heavily armed centurions. Was he really saying things like “No, it’s okay, I want to do this. It’s part of The Plan, you see.”? (It has to be said that many human sacrifices do willingly go to their deaths, sure in the belief that they are doing it for the good of their people, and that their deity actually exists. They don’t usually magically manipulate events to ensure that it happens, however…)
2. Maybe it somehow was a selfless sacrifice. In this case, why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed by the state? Why not just say to his disciples “Well guys, it’s time to say Goodbye.” and throw himself under the nearest chariot? Death is death. Did the manner in which Christ died actually make any difference?
3. It has never been adequately explained how this death freed us all from sin. If the death freed us from the consequences of sin (hell, or eternal oblivion), it is still unclear as to why it had to happen in this particular way. Why didn’t God just sort it all out during Creation?
4. If Jesus is God, then how do we know he really suffered? Is it possible to inflict physical pain on an immortal, omnipotent entity? (see ‘Suffering’ below) Maybe he was just faking it for the crowd…
5. If Jesus is God, then how was it a sacrifice? He only had to spend a few days “dead”, then it was back home to Heaven (and he knew all this beforehand, being omniscient). A few days in the underworld can hardly have been a big deal for an eternal, omnipotent deity, can it? (And of course, being omnipresent as well, he would already have been there all the time anyway).
6. What was he doing during those three days? (Some people say he was preaching to the lost souls in Hell). Why three days anyway? Coming back to life after a couple of weeks would have impressed the locals much more.
7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn’t suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide… (Of course, in Jesus’ case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).
8. Why didn’t he stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice if you spring back to life a few days later, is it (especially if that was your intention right from the start)?
9. If Jesus had it all planned from the start (if you believe Christians when they tell you the Old Testament is full of prophecies about Jesus and his death), then it certainly was not a sacrifice. He must have used his God-Magic to manipulate events and ensure that the crucifixion occurred. This would include making Judas betray him.
10. Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus’ blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely Christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been Saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they’d have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly cooked chicken leg.
11. Why didn’t Jesus let the disciples in on the big secret beforehand?
12. If Judas had not given Jesus a kiss on the cheek, would nobody have known who he was? Had he been preaching, healing and overturning tables with a mask on, so that the only way in which the “great multitude” who came for him could recognise him was through Judas’ kiss? Perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, and only Judas could easily tell them apart? Perhaps the other disciples were all wearing “Jesus Masks” to throw the crowd off the scent? Judas’ part in all this would seem to be quite redundant if Jesus were at all recognisable to his enemies…

We are told that Jesus died for our sins, and his death on the cross saved us all from Hell (or eternal death). So why do we still get all the sermons about sin, heaven and hell? If we are all going to Heaven anyway, why do priests keep pestering us? If our afterlife still depends on living a good christian life then what difference did Jesus’ death make? How did it change anything?

If Jesus has already “paid the price” for our sins, then surely we can now sin as much as we like. If not, why not? Or, if he only paid for Original Sin, that still doesn’t explain why God needed a blood sacrifice to sort out something that could easily have been avoided in the first place. (Remember though, that the first murder in the Bible occurred as a result of God preferring a sacrifice of flesh to a sacrifice of vegetables, for some obscure reason).

If our getting into Heaven depends solely on accepting Christ as our personal Saviour, what about all those people who died without even hearing about him (for whatever reason)? If they get into heaven anyway, then Christ’s death is irrelevant. In which case, why shouldn’t the same apply to everyone? If God had never sent Christ to Earth, everyone would get into Heaven and there would be a few less violent wars in the history books…

The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself, in order to prevent himself sending us all to Hell for committing sins because of the way he made us, and which he knew we were going to do is difficult to accept…

The Suffering

A big thing is made about how much Christ suffered on the cross. While certainly quite nasty, there are much worse ways to die (and the followers of Christ have been quite inventive in thinking up new ones over the last couple of thousand years). If Christ’s suffering was somehow supposed to be for our benefit, wouldn’t we benefit more if his suffering had been greater (e.g. he might have been hung, drawn and quartered; or keelhauled; or water-boarded first)? Or, if he had suffered less (maybe quickly stabbed) would it have made any difference? All the other people who were crucified (and there were certainly plenty – the Romans were very big on crucifixions) would have suffered to a similar degree, if not more. How was Christ’s suffering any different to theirs?

Crucifixion is obviously a particularly horrific way to die. However, being God, Jesus would have known not only the pain involved in crucifixion, but also the pain involved in every other possible manner of dying. God would be perfectly aware of tortures, diseases and injuries that make crucifixion seem like a picnic on a warm summer day. When people go on about how terrible His death was, how much he suffered, and that it allowed Him to experience human suffering, I think “But if he was God, a few hours on the cross would have been utterly insignificant to Him and He would already know exactly what all possible forms of human suffering are like.”

Some people argue that Christ suffered more than just physical pain – he suffered spiritual pain because he was taking all of our sins on himself. Unfortunately, this spiritual suffering didn’t seem to make enough of an impression on the writers of the Gospels for them to note it down… This also begs the question – If He suffered “spiritual pain”, why was it necessary for Him to also suffer physical pain? Couldn’t He have atoned and suffered without being nailed to a stick first? At what point did the spiritual pain begin and end, and why?

Presumably this atonement includes the sins of people in the past and future, as well as at the time of the crucifixion. In that case, why did God have to come to earth at all and be sacrificed (to himself)? Why not just sort it all out right at the time of Creation? What happened to those who died before Christ did? Were they just sort of floating around in limbo, waiting for the time of the Atonement?

So Christ suffered horribly and died (temporarily) for His beliefs? So what?
How many people suffer far, far worse deaths every single year for no good reason whatsoever? (Ironically, sometimes at the hands of Christ’s “followers”). People who are brutally murdered because of the colour of their skin, or their beliefs, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Original Sin

If it simply freed us from (or paid the price for) Original Sin (Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world which was then somehow inherited), does that mean that all those people who died before Jesus didn’t have a chance? Or did his death retro-actively Save them as well? In which case, why did he have to die at all? Why not just remove Original Sin right at the start?

In conclusion, the crucifixion which is the keystone of Christianity appears irrational and hence is wobbly.

(http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crucify.html with slight modifications)

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

The prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, was so devoted to God that he was prepared to offer his son to God as a sacrifice.

There is a disagreement over which son was sacrificed. Jews and Christians say that the son who was almost sacrificed was Isaac. Whereas, Muslims say that Ishmael was almost sacrificed. This article will only use the Bible to determine which son was almost sacrificed.

It is important to determine which son was offered to God, because it would seem to validate one position over another: A common Jewish/Christian position is that Isaac and his descendants are far better than the rest of mankind, whereas the Muslim position is that Isaac and Ishmael are equal, and that their descendants are only superior if one is more pious than the other.

1) A common argument used against the idea that Ishmael was the son offered as a sacrifice, is that the Bible came before the Quran, and so the Bible is correct. There are a number of problems with this argument, the most obvious being that simply because the Bible is older, it doesn’t make it more accurate. It could easily have been changed (and has been done. For example, 1 john 5:7, the only explicit verse which supports the trinity, is an insertation). Also, Muslims believe that the Quran is a Revelation from God, it corrects mistakes in Jewish and Christian belief. Therefore, it is irrelevant when the Quran was revealed.

2) Jews and Christians assume that the Bible supports the belief that it was Isaac and not Ishmael who was almost sacrificed. However this is an incorrect assumption which has resulted from a lack of analysis of the text: There are a number of problems with the chapters regarding Abraham and his sons which reveal many deliberate and one or two accidental changes in the text. In other words, the text has been changed to support Isaac as the sacrifice and not Ishmael. However, let us first establish the existence of problems in the text:

a) If we calculate the ages of Abraham and his sons using the information given in the chapters, we can establish when Ishmael was a baby and when he was a teenager/man (the idea of a teenager has been invented within the last century and so it is perhaps incorrect to call him a teenager).

Let us begin by determining the ages of the people involved:

Genesis 16:16 “Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael”.

Abraham was 86 years old and Ishmael was 0 years old (he was less than a day old since he had just been born).

Genesis 17: 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day.

So 13 years later, Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13 when they were circumcised.

Genesis 21:5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

So in chapter 21, 1 year later, Abraham was 100 and Isaac was 0 (just been born). Ishmael, by obvious deduction, was 14.

However, examining the next group of verses in chapter 21 shows a sudden change in the age of Ishmael; Ishmael changes from a teenager/young man to a baby.

We do not know how old Hagar is. If we assume her to be a very young teenager (13) when she gives birth to Ishmael, then fourteen years later, she will be at least 27 years old. If we assume her to be a fully-grown woman (21-40), then fourteen years later, she will be around 35 to 54 years old. She was most likely in her thirties or forties, in chapter 21, after the birth of Isaac.

Now let us examine the next group of verses in chapter 21 to determine the age of Ishmael. A reader may ask why it is necessary to establish Ishmael’s age in chapter 21 when we have already deduced it is 14? The answer is that Ishmael’s age suddenly changes; in the wrong direction. He is no longer a teenager/man, but a baby or a young child:

Genesis 21: 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Sarah wants Ishmael and Hagar to be gotten rid of.  (On a side-note, it appears to be rather cruel of Sarah to deprive Ishmael of receiving the inheritance owed to him for being the son of Abraham, simply because he had mocked Isaac. She deprives him of his inheritance for doing something wrong, even she wasn’t perfect herself; for example, mistreating Hagar).

14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

For some reason Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar’s shoulders and not Ishmael’s. Why put them on a woman and not on a man? Why put them on a woman who, if not already old, is far from her youth? Why not put them on the shoulders of a man in his youth and in his prime?

15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.

The reason is now apparent. Hagar “put” the boy under a bush. The fact that she, herself, put the boy under the bush shows that Ishmael is a baby or a child in this passage, small enough to be lifted and moved. This is a real conflict since we know that Ishmael is at 14 years old from verses earlier in the same chapter.

A Jew or Christian may be adamant and say that Hagar DID put Ishmael under a bush and his age did not change. But since when did thirty or forty year old women have the strength to lift and place a fourteen year old teenager/man under a bush?

The fact that Hagar put Ishmael under a bush, rather than Ishmael putting himself under a bush, shows that he was a baby or a child.

Furthermore, the fact that Ishmael was put under a bush (obviously to keep him safe or to protect him, for example from the sun in the desert of Beersheba) shows that he is a baby or young child. This is reinforced by Ishmael being small enough to fit under a bush. If someone claims that the bushes were large enough for a young man to fit underneath, why did Hagar not join him? It makes no sense that she, a middle age/old woman, rather than a man in his youth, would go looking for water.

This is also supported by the use of the word ‘boy’ to describe Ishmael, rather than the word ‘son’, which has been the word used to describe Ishmael throughout the chapters so far. (This point needs to be confirmed).

16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there nearby, he/she began to sob.

Note: “he/she”. Two Biblical text sources, the Hebrew and Septuagint, of this passage differ on whether it was “he” or “she” crying. This copyist error can be resolved by looking at the context. In terms of context, it is Ishmael crying, not Hagar, and not both. This is seen by the next verse where God “heard the boy crying”.

(The fact that Ishmael started to cry emphasises he can’t be a teenager/young man. It is very unlikely that Ishmael would cry when the water had run out; it would be demoralising to his mother.)

Further evidence that Ishmael is a baby or young child is that according to Hagar, Ishmael will die very soon (due to the lack of water).  “I cannot watch the boy die” shows us that Ishmael is going to die soon, and she will be alive to see it. But why would a teenager/man in his youth die very soon, and a woman, not in her youth die after? Unless of course Ishmael is a baby or young child.

If more verses were quoted from this chapter, we would see further, but unnecessary, evidence that clearly Ishmael is a baby or a child in verses 14 of chapter 21 onwards. But even in the same chapter, verse 5 says that Abraham is 100 and therefore Ishmael is 14*. This sudden change in ages shows editing of the passages. Otherwise, we would wonder how Ishmael managed to “ungrow”!

*(Genesis 16:16 says Abraham is 99 and Ishmael is 13, so when looking at Genesis 21:5 which says Abraham is 100, Ishmael is logically 14).

3) In chapter 22, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. We see that God Himself tells Abraham more than once to sacrifice “your son, your only son” (see verses 2, 12, 16).

But the fact is, Abraham has two sons (at this time; although he later has more). His sons are Ishmael and Isaac (in descending order of age). Yet God Himself, who does not make mistakes and is perfect, tells Abraham to sacrifice “your son, your only son” son.

There are three possibilities: EITHER i) God made a mistake OR ii) Abraham’s other offspring don’t count as sons OR iii) Abraham only had one son at that time.

a) We can eliminate the first possibility on the basis that God is perfect and does not make mistakes. His Words are perfect.

b) The second possibility is the one used by Jews and Christians to defend their position. They claim that Hagar was not Abraham’s wife and so Ishmael did not count as a real ‘son’, because he was an illegitimate child. However this position is flawed in both theory and reality.

In theory, if a son is illegitimate, why would it make him any less of a son? The child still bears his father’s genes. The only difference between an illegitimate and a legitimate child (apart from the fact that an illegitimate person’s parents aren’t married at the time of conception/birth) is that in some cultures, the illegitimate children might not be able to bear his father’s name or inherit his father’s aristocratic title or wealth. This wouldn’t stop the child being the son of the father, illegitimate or not. Logically speaking a child does not stop being the son of a father. The illegitimate son is still a son, even if he’s illegitimate.

In reality, the argument considering illegitimacy is unnecessary because the Bible confirms that Ishmael is not only a son of Abraham, but a legitimate one too because Hagar was a wife of Abraham.

Genesis 16: 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress.

Here it clearly says that Hagar became the wife of Abraham. It also says that Ishmael was conceived after they were married. This clearly makes Ishmael a legitimate son.

Perhaps the Bible still doesn’t consider Ishmael a son of Abraham? The next verses clearly call Ishmael Abraham’s son.

Genesis 16:15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne.

Genesis 17: 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day.

Genesis 21: 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” 11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.

Some Christians claim that at this point Ishmael is disinherited. But just because Ishmael has been deprived of his inheritance (or so it seems), doesn’t stop him being Abraham’s son. Regardless, the Bible confirms that Ishmael is still Abraham’s son. See:

Genesis 25: 8 Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. 9 His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite,

Genesis 25:12 This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.

So we have a problem. God tells Abraham to sacrifice “your only son”, but Abraham has two sons, “his sons Isaac and Ishmael” (Genesis 25:9). Since we have ruled out the possibility of God being wrong or Ishmael not being the son of Abraham, we are forced to conclude that this conflict and contradiction was not in the original text that God revealed. Therefore, some changes must have been made.

These conflicts show undoubtedly that the Bible obviously contradicts itself. Since God makes no mistakes and is perfect Himself, and there was no problem in the original text revealed by God to Moses. But as we see above, there are conflicts in the present version of the text. This shows, therefore, that there have been changes to the text.

c) Changes are of two natures: deliberate and accidental.

An accidental error would be a copying or translational error. We have seen one copyist error in Genesis 21:16 where two Biblical sources differed on whether “he” or “she” was crying. The context determined the correct variant is “he”, since the next verse said that God heard the boy (male, therefore he) cry.

The other conflicts and contradictions described above however are of a deliberate nature. It would be illogical to claim that accidental errors, perhaps in copying, occurred, when entire passages contradict! It is conceivable for someone to incorrectly copy a word. But to incorrectly copy entire passages into the wrong places?  But to continually incorrectly copy one particular word again and again? Only a deliberate change would greatly change the consequential order and only a deliberate change would replace the name of someone with another name throughout a passage.

All the chapters mentioning Ishmael up to verse 12 of chapter 21 show Ishmael growing until he becomes 14; Whereas later in chapter 21, verse 12 to 21 describe Ishmael as a baby or young child. Chapter 21 says that Isaac is Abraham’s only son.

“Your only son” is not incorrectly translated and the Biblical text sources, such as the Hebrew and Septuagint agree on the words “your only son”, so there is no evidence of a copying error; (If it had been a copying error, different copies would disagree on the words, whereas a deliberate change would change all new copies). “Your only son” is repeated more than once in the passage so it cannot be a copying error.

4) So what did the original verses say?

“Your only son” can only refer to Ishmael since the only time when Abraham had one son was when Isaac and Abraham’s later sons had not been born; therefore the verses that say “Your only son Isaac” must actually be “Your only son Ishmael”.

Genesis 21 which shows Ishmael suddenly turning from a 14 year old to a baby/young child cannot be resolved so easily. It is obvious that the passage has been moved from its original location. The first part of chapter 21 must be moved back to sometime before the birth of Isaac.

5) Why would Ishmael’s name be replaced with Isaac’s?

a) The Jews did not like that Ishmael was the one who Abraham almost sacrificed. There is also a strong connection between the son who offered as a sacrifice and the covenant to bless Abraham’s descendants. It is undeniable that the Jews pride themselves with their claim that they are the chosen nation and so are far greater than any other nation. (Christians too agree with this claim, although some find it difficult to then explain why they choose Christianity over the “chosen” nation). Muslims disagree with this claim; They acknowledge that the Jews received a great many blessings from God, but that other nations have been blessed too. And so while a Muslim finds it acceptable to believe that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed through Abraham, a Jew finds it acceptable to believe that Isaac received all of the great blessings from God through Abraham, and that Ishmael was simply given some small blessings. Such beliefs have led to switching the name; “your son, your only son Ishmael” became “your son, your only son, Isaac”. The damage of the editing (conflicts, contradictions, and so on) is evident.

More on this topic can be read at http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/comparative/sacrifice.htm . The quotes from Encyclopaedia Judaica on that page are particularly interesting.

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

Paul claimed to have been appointed an apostle of Jesus in a revelation and also, that he continued to receive instructions directly from the Master even though they were sometimes contrary to what the disciples had heard from Jesus in person. Let us examine the basis of Paul’s claim. It should be remembered that Paul (who was previously called Saul) had been an implacable enemy of Christians before converting on his way to Damascus. That incident is related three times in The Acts of the Apostles, each time differently.

The first version goes like this:

3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

(NIV Acts 9:3-7)

In this version the incident is related by the author of The Acts. Points worthing noting are: (a) The light which Paul saw shined about him. (b) It is not related that others saw the light, but they did hear the voice. (c) It was Paul who fell to the ground. (d) The voice of Jesus ordered him to enter the city and there he would be told what to do.

The second version of the story is reported in the same book, but the words are purported to be spoken by Paul before the tribune and a crowd of Jews. Here, he was answering charges of preaching against the law and defiling the Temple by bringing Greeks into it:

6“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

8” ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

” ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

10“‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.
“‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’

(NIV Acts 22:6-10)

This version agrees with the first version in that: (a) The one who fell to the ground was Paul and not those with him. (b) Paul was told to enter the city and there he would receive further instructions. It differs with the first version in the statement that those who were with Paul saw the light but did not hear the voice.

The third version of this incident is also contained in Paul’s words as related in the same book, The Acts of the Apostles:

12“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, [Or 'Hebrew'] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15“Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

” ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

(Acts 26:12-18)

Here we see a great divergence from the statements in Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 of the very same book: (a) According to this version, it is not Paul alone who saw the light, as related in the first version, but everyone, as related in the second. (b) Here Paul says that they all fell to the ground, which contradicts the two previous versions in which it was Paul alone who fell. (c) Instead of Paul’s being instructed by the voice to enter the city where he would be told what to do, this version gives the information about Paul’s mission immediately on the spot. Paul was to be sent, contrary to the Jesus’ teachings, as a special messenger to preach the gospel to non-Jews and to teach salvation by faith alone.

Why did Paul elucidate so much in the third version? No doubt because he was addressing King Agrippa. But one pauses to wonder what he would think of a witness who relates one story to the police, changes it slightly when facing the magistrate, and presents a completely different version when the case reaches the High Court. No one can describe Paul better than he himself:

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

To win converts was the be-all and end-all of Paul’s mission. He said:

8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

(Romans 10:8-9)”

This passage comes from: ‘Paul : Apostle or Antichrist : A Look into the Origins of Christianity (William G Joquin)’.

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

The verse in question reads: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

1) Christians often point out the Jew’s reaction to John 5:58.

“Look at the Jews’ reactions. They knew he was claiming to be god! That’s why they tried to stone him. That proves he said he was god”.

However, it is unimportant what the Jews thought. Because,

a) We are looking at what Jesus SAID, not what other people THOUGHT HE SAID…

b) The Jews constantly misunderstood him throughout the gospels. For example, when Jesus said “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, the Jews, even Jesus’ disciples, all became very confused.

2) A Christian might say that “Jesus said ‘I am’…therefore he claimed to be Yahweh”.

The verse says:
Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

a) If Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, why didn’t he say “i am Yahweh”? Why did he instead say “I am”? How does saying “I am”, mean he is claiming to be Yahweh? Maybe he’s claiming to be someone else? Perhaps Moses. In-fact, how do we even know he’s claiming to be someone? That verse doesn’t look like he’s claiming to be someone, let alone God Almighty. If someone says to you “I am”, do you automatically think “He’s claiming to be Yahweh?”, No.

b) Assuming that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, then if Jesus was saying that he is Yahweh then the name would be untranslated.

This example explains what I mean: Names often have meaning. The name “stephen” means “crown” in Hebrew. If i want to say “my name is Stephen” or “i am Stephen”, then I say “I am stephen”…i don’t say “i am crown”. You don’t translate names. So, if Jesus is claiming to be god, he would say “i am Yahweh”, not “i am”. Jesus didn’t say “Yahweh”, he said “i am”.

Jesus doesn’t say “I am Yahweh”. He simply says “I am”. There is no “I AM [Yahweh]” and no “MY NAME IS [Yahweh]“. If I say “Moses”…am i claiming to be Moses? No: I simply said his name. So why is Jesus apparently claiming divinity, because he says “i am”?

c) If Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh by translating it, why didn’t he say all of the meaning of the name ‘Yahweh’? The meaning of Yahweh is “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”? Why did he say “I am” instead of the proper meaning?

d) If Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, then (remembering part b and ignoring part c), the verse actually reads:
Jesus said:”Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, Yahweh” (John 8:58).

Points to notice:
-Anyone capable of speaking English will tell you that isn’t even a proper sentence.
-Remember to notice how Jesus doesn’t say “I AM (yahweh)”. He simply says “Yahweh”. There is no “I AM [Yahweh]” and no “MY NAME IS [Yahweh]“. If I say “Moses”…am i claiming to be Moses? No: I simply said his name.

3) So what is the actual translation of this verse? The Greek words “ego eimi” are translated as “I Am”. However, the literal translation mentioned in the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible reads; “I have been”.

Here are some translations which support this:

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
“Jesus says to them:”Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant-S.Sharpe:
“I was before Abraham”.

A Bible, A New Translation- J.Moffatt:
“I existed before Abraham was born”

The New Testament in the Language of the Day-W.G.Beck:
“I was before Abraham”

The Simple English Bible:
“I was alive before Abraham was born”

The Twentieth Century New Testament:
“before Abraham existed I was”

The New Testament in the Language of the People- C.B.Williams:
“I existed before Abraham was born”

The Bible-An American Translation-E.Goodspeed(NT):
“I existed”

The Unvarnished New Testament-A.Gaus:
“I have already been”

The Authentic New Testament-H.J.Schonfield:
“I existed”

The Complete Gospels-R.J.Miller(Editor):
“I existed”

New American Standard Bible 1963-1970 editions:
“I have been”-

Why do all these Bible translate it as “was” or “have been”? This is because although the Greek is in the present tense, it is using the historical present. This is supported by Jesus saying he was in existence before Abraham. Read more on the issue of translation here and here.

4) a) Now let us consider the verse correctly translated; Will it make sense? “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I was”. Yes! It makes sense! Jesus is saying he was around (i.e. in existence) before Abraham. Whereas before, the sentence did not make sense at all.

A reminder: Jesus didn’t say “my name is” or “i am called or “i am”. And the correct translation is “i was”. If Jesus is claiming to be god, obviously he didn’t stop being god (‘was’).

b) A Christian might say “okay, okay, so Jesus was claiming to have existed before Abraham. Being eternal makes you God! Therefore Jesus was claiming to be god anyway! The Jews knew this. That’s why they tried to stone him”.
I have already responded to why it is unimportant to what the Jews thought. And the Christian has changed what he/she thinks the Jewish reaction to Jesus’ words was.

c) Claiming to be around before someone, doesn’t mean you’re eternal. For example, I was before my son. I’m not eternal because i’m around longer than someone. So just because Jesus was claiming to be around before Abraham, doesn’t mean Jesus is eternal.

Even if I claim to be around before someone who has been dead for centuries. It doesn’t mean i’m eternal. It means i was around before that person. God could have created me before that person. So i’m not eternal, but i’m still around before that person.

d) Even if Jesus was claiming to be eternal. Does this make him god? No. Because according to the Bible, King Melchizedek of Salem was an ETERNAL priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Hebrews 7:1-3)
So if Jesus is claiming to be god because he is claiming to be eternal, than Melchizedek IS also god, because he is eternal.

5) Although I have said the Jewish reaction is unimportant, and it isn’t, I will consider the Jewish reaction just to complete this article.
Christians claim the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be Yahweh. When we consider the passage, this obviously isn’t true.

56 [Jesus said] “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham came into being, I was!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Points to notice:
-Jesus is talking about Abraham being happy at seeing Jesus’ day (verse 56)
-The Jews respond that Jesus isn’t old enough to have seen Abraham (verse57)
-Jesus swears that he was around before Abraham (verse 58)
-The Jews take offence for whatever reason and try to stone him (verse 59)

Obviously this supports my earlier point that Jesus is claiming to be around before Abraham. It also supports the correct translation by context of the passage. It does not support the incorrect (it’s “i was” not “i am because of the context and historical present) and twisted (it doesn’t make sense) trinitarian translation…because if Jesus is claiming to be god, then why did he do so randomly during a conversion about Jesus having seen Abraham? This is further supported by verse 58, where Jesus says “before Abraham”.

Conclusion
Jesus said he had seen Abraham. The Jews said he wasn’t even fifty years old (and Abraham had been dead for centuries…to have seen Abraham, Jesus would have had to be very old). Notice the Jews did not say it was impossible for him to be centuries old nor take offence; only that they knew he wasn’t centuries old (Jesus is part of the community so they know him and he’s grown up before their eyes). Jesus responds by saying he was around before Abraham.

Jesus did not claim to be Yahweh!

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

©2010 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.