Like everyone else, I was warned about the blood and violence, and braced for it. But the bit about the English subscripts must have slipped my mind. One unexpected thing I got out of watching "The Passion of the Christ" is its affirmation that Jesus never uttered the word "God." Instead, he called upon the Creator using a name that is very close to what I and other Muslims often evoke, namely, the word "Allah." (The Aramaic word for God is transliterated as "alaha.")

In a broad sense, "The Passion," as well as the controversy that stalks it, is an extension of the very long struggle for narrative control over the life and mission of Jesus. We, the American public, are given the impression that the discussion about the movie and its main character is a discourse between folks on both sides of a curious hyphen in the Judeo-Christian ambit, with Rabbis and Jewish intelligentsia expressing their fears that the movie will inspire anti-Semitism and with Christians denying that.

The irony here is that Muslims are perfectly poised to offer a view that no one seems to be talking about. What "The Passion" depicted in chilling imagery is but one narrative among several about Christ. In fact, Gibson portrayed one "canonized" narrative of Christ (only 12 hours of it) that received approval some centuries after the Messiah had lived and one that does not enjoy consensus even in Christian quarters and scholarship.

When asked, a Muslim will tell you that Christ was not sent to die, but, like the prophets before him and Prophet Muhammad after him, he was sent to live and teach. In short, a Muslim would say there is no Christ killer and, therefore, no need to associate anyone with that indictment and no need to cause anyone to fear it. What happened to Jesus at the end of his life was not about violence, but about honor in the face of vehement rejection. God raised His prophet to Himself, thus sparing Jesus of the execution Gibson so graphically detailed and imprinted in the public mind through the very powerful medium of art and culture. This is a view that was also shared among some early Christian sects, like the Basilideans, who believed that Christ himself was never crucified.

To vilify Jesus and deny that he is one of God's prophets and messengers is a cardinal sin in Islam, enough to disqualify one from the faith. To deify Jesus, however, is considered an affront to the primordial foundation of the religion project: the oneness of God and His sole divinity. The Muslim "middle" view here is not a self-conscious act of officiating a religious debate between Jews and Christians. Our understanding and beliefs regarding Christ are essentially identical to the beliefs we have about Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad: all prophets, all humans, sent by God to teach humanity certain things that should keep us guided and clear in our very brief lives. If we are ever to be confused about something, let it not be about God and His divinity, and humankind and our humanity, especially as it pertains to our salvation quest. In Islamic theology, the human being is born pure, brought into this world in a state of grace. The concept of Original Sin is essentially homeless in our tradition. We inherit eye color and receding hairlines from our parents, not their wrongdoing. Forgiveness, pardoning, and mercy are of God's essence, and He generously bestows them for the cool price of belief and sincerity.

In an important way, "The Passion" is an accidental expose about the religious sensitivities of our times, about a wounded spirituality that seems to require sensationalism to keep the faithful going. This is a point that men and women of religion may all agree upon and observe in their respective flocks. Mel Gibson unwittingly may have done a service in raising issues indigenous to the human spirit that the postmodern world seems to shun, issues about God, prophets, salvation, mercy, and hope. It's a vital conversation with divides and alliances, passions and perils, but a conversation that nonetheless can stand to hear the "middle" view that Islam naturally offers. Something of this view, in unavoidably brief fashion, now follows:

Muslims love and revere Jesus, and believe in him as a Prophet and Messenger of God, a great teacher and guide for people. But Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Nor do Muslims believe that he was slain on the cross, as some early sects of Christians had once believed. Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel to revive faith and a spiritual connection with God. All the miracles that Jesus performed were indeed true: raising the dead, healing the blind and the leper, and more. These miracles, however, occurred through the auspices of God's power and will, as it was with the splitting of the sea for Moses, Solomon understanding the utterances of animals, and many other suspensions of the natural order. God is the Creator, and when He determines something, He but says to it "Be" and it is! (as the Qur'an states). Muslims venerate Mary, the mother of Jesus. She indeed gave birth to Jesus though she was a virgin. She was a spiritual woman who was chosen among her people to the office of special contemplation and prayer. But Muslims do not hold her to be the "mother of God" and similar attributes. She too was fully human and was a beloved and important person in a remarkable series of miracles in a special time in human history. Every biology and miracle, the explainable and the inexplicable, whether it is the creation of Adam from clay or the conception of any given child of two parents, goes back to God. It is all the same to Him. All of it easy. All of it His.

In Islamic parlance, Jesus (peace be upon him) is known by the venerable titles of "Word" and "Spirit," since the Qur'an tells us that God cast the "word" or "spirit" upon Mary, the Mother of Jesus. "Indeed, the angels said: 'O Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in this world and the Hereafter, and he shall be among those brought near [to God]. He will speak to humankind in the cradle and in manhood, and he is of the righteous" (Qur'an, 3:45).

Also, the Qur'an states: "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was but a Messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed to Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him" (Qur'an, 4:171). "And indeed God gave Moses the Book [Torah], and after him We sent Messengers in succession. We gave Jesus son of Mary clear proofs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit [Angel Gabriel]" (Qur'an, 2:87).

The thought life of a Muslim with regard to all the prophets is best summed by the following verse of the Qur'an "Say [O believers]: "We believe in God and [the Book] sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes; and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to [all] the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him do we surrender ourselves" (Qur'an 2:136).

The first issue that should be dealt with is the historical precedent of the faiths in question. The aggressive Protestant sects, the evangelical fundamentalists especially, sometime forget to tell us that their faith was a development out of the Catholicism. And that their book differs with the catholic text, shows that there is not just one bible that is final word on ǃ˙GodǃÙs wordǃ˘. This development was spurred on by the invasion into Muslim lands and interaction with Al Islam during the infamous Crusades. Therefore; to the born-again ChristianǃÙs taunt that Al Islam is younger than Christianity, we ask, ǃ˙Which Christianity?ǃ˘ Was it the Greek orthodox of Byzantium who were defeated by the Muslims and that relinquished Jerusalem and then Constantinople to the victorious Islamic forces? Or the Roman Catholic sect that showed itǃÙs true pagan nature during the Crusades and the Inquisition? No, in fact the born-again Christian sect is younger than Al Islam and the King James Version of the bible was put together centuries after the revelation of the Quran. In fact the colony of Virginia was established before the King James Version of the bible was written. What were the Christians of Jamestown using for a bible before 1600? This heathen concoction that was ǃ˙born againǃ˘ in Europe by Europeans without any ǃ˙revelationǃ˘ from on high, indicates that this ǃ˙anti-Messiahǃ˘ movement was based on pagan Greek gods, philosophy, customs, practices, and language! As a matter of fact the religion of Al Islam can be traced back to the first created human being. Al Islam was the faith of Abraham, the father of the faithful (peace be upon him), who submitted his will to that of his Creator. Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, as these religions were developed after his time. Muslims, therefore, possess a faith that links them back to the prophets of old and to the worship of the Creator of the universe, before the deviations from true monotheism took hold.

When the bible thumpers pretend that what they are promoting has nothing to do with the pagan Greeks, quickly remind them that the man-god concept is promoted by those from Europe and the name ǃ˙Europeǃ˘ is derived from the pagan Greek goddess that had sex with a bull! According to pagan Greek mythology, when Zeus manifest himself on Earth, he came in the form of a bull and mated with Europa! She had children with this bull and two of her male ǃ˙sons of godǃ˘ were judges in the underworld of the mythology of the pagan Greeks! A myth is an old lie, retold over and over again! Marquis de Sade, the sick and deviant nobleman, tried to repeat the alleged sex act using a bull and a prostitute with death of the poor human female as a result! So those bent on bragging about their European Christian civilization, name themselves and their land after a pagan Greek goddess that committed an impossible sex act of bestiality!

At this point the Christians may yell, ǃ˙So What!?! The bible does not teach such things!ǃ˘ Well, strange how the bible is suppose to be their guide and yet it does not correct these pagan incursions. More to the point, the Catholic bible in the Book of the Maccabees tells the ǃ˙storyǃ˘ of how the pagan Greeks dominated the Jews in Judea and Jerusalem. This historical account in the bible informs us that the pagan Greeks forced the Jews to worship the ǃ˙father and sonǃ˘ as one god, that is Zeus and Dionysus! The Jews were forced to eat swine-the sacrificial animal to the ǃ˙son of godǃ˘! The Jewish scriptures were burnt and circumcision was banned on the penalty of death. Only after a protracted struggle and open warfare, the Jews ǃ˙freedǃ˘ themselves from the physical domination of the pagan Greeks. The cultural domination, however; was not so easily removed! The Christians today still use the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, a scripture translated from the Hebrew into Greek under the supervision of the pagan Greek king Philidelphus of Ptolemaic Egypt. Now with that historical background, we can see that the pagan Greek legacy is indeed of some concern when discussing the claims of Christianity. The concept of ǃ˙father and sonǃ˘ as one god, the eating of flesh and drinking of blood to get the ǃ˙spiritǃ˘, the use of swine flesh as food, God coming down in animal and/or human form, human sacrifice or blood atonement, denying the importance of circumcision, calling God ǃ˙Dios which means Zeusǃ˘ and preaching about the ǃ˙sonǃ˘ as ǃ˙Logos, the Alpha and Omega, Liberator and Savior of mankindǃ˘, as well as the denial of the commandments that conflicted with the pagan Greek way of life stand as testimony as to the unreliability of the Christian's claim a belief system in the tradition of Abraham (peace be upon him and his pious descendents)!

The next issue that must be clarified is the name used when referring the Messiah. It is agreed by a majority of Christian scholars that the Messiah spoke Aramaic as indicated in the translations of the current bible. The people of his community also spoke Aramaic. The message he gave to the people was of course in Aramaic. This being the case, what was his name in Aramaic according to the bible in Aramaic? For the proper name of the Messiah we consult the Aramaic New Testament, Matthew 1, verse 1, we find the spelling: YUDH, SHEEN, WAU, AI which is pronounced Ye-sua. Notice that this is a transliteration of a Semitic language and there is no ǃ˙Jǃ˘ in the name whatsoever. To hear the name called out loud in itǃÙs Arabic form (a sister Semitic language) the name is pronounced nearly the same. So if a personǃÙs name was Ye-sau or I-sa, then calling out that name pronounced in the Semitic fashion may get a positive response if the individual hears you. However, to yell the Greek name, Iesus, is more of an insult to a pious man knowledgeable of Jewish history, the murderous events surrounding idol worship of Zeus (complete with swine sacrifice, consumption of swine flesh and temple prostitution) in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem and the resulting Maccabean revolt against the pagan Greeks and the assimulationist Jews (these are the ones refered to in the Quran, renegade Jews that said," Ezra is the son of god" in the fashion of the pagan Greeks). What more, the name has suffered a further corruption to its current misusage to ǃ˙Jesusǃ˘. Clearly, the proper name for the Messiah is Isa as rendered for mankind in the Quran. The use of the name ǃ˙Iesus Christos or Jesus the Christǃ˘ instead of ǃ˙Isa the Messiahǃ˘ is the first indicator as to the Greek influence on the message of the Messiah.

The truth about this pagan man-god concept is in the bible for anyone to read for him or herself. The pagan Greek philosophy of the Stoics is where the idea of Logos comes from. The pagan deity Dionysus is also mentioned in the New Testament in the form of a name sake in Athens. We open the book of Acts chapter 17- verse 34 and find Dionysius (belonging to Dionysus) the Areopagite, a convert and believer from Athens. What needs to be noted here is the context and message that was delivered in Athens by Paul of Tarsus. We go back to verse 18 and read that in Athens there were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers that disputed with Paul. After being invited to speak at the meeting of the Areopagus, Paul stands in front and delivers his speech, ǃ˙Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ǃÚTo an unknown godǃÙ. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him-though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For ǃÚIn him we live and move and have our beingǃÙ; as even some of your own poets have said, For we too are his offspring. Since we are GodǃÙs offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and the imagination of mortals. While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.ǃ˘

With this history as a backdrop, it is easy to see the influence of pagan Greek concepts even in the current bible. For instance, when Paul was explaining his concept of God by using as a reference a work entitled Phaenomena by the Stoic philosopher Aratus of Soli (c.315-240 B.C.). This textbook on astronomy was used in schools and was read as a standard by literally everyone. The statement "For we too are his offspring" is similar to a statement in Cleanthes' "Hymn to Zeus", but Cleanthes uses the second person in direct address to Zeus whereas Aratus' statement is third person, as is Paul's quotation.
The example of this was the fifth verse of the Phaenomena, let us examine verses one through five:
Zeus is to be our starting-point. We men never leave his name unspoken. Every Street is filled with Zeus every concourse of men, the sea and ports are filled with him. We all need Zeus at all times. We are his offspring.
After reading the five verses of Aratusǃ٠poem it is quite clear that the Stoics were being reminded of Zeus (Dios) by Paul. And it is also clear that Allah, Jehovah or Yahweh was not referred to by name nor Jesus the crucified savior, the god become flesh on whom one must believe to be saved according to the self-same preacher Paul of Tarsus in his other writings and orations. So in the quotation, ǃ˙We are his offspringǃ˘ the ǃ˙hisǃ˘ refers to Zeus (Dios) as the poem indicates and this pagan deity is not the God of the Old Testament or Lord of the Worlds. Then what of this philosophical view of the Stoics that held so much importance that it replaced the MessiahǃÙs teachings and world view? To answer that question, we must take a look at the StoicǃÙs concept of God and where that concept is reflected in New Testament.

According to the Stoic view, nothing is immaterial. God, the world, and even words are material. This materialistic outlook demanded that God have a physical manifestation. Stoicism was pantheistic in that it found the divine reality in everything. Zeus, or fire (the element considered most akin to reason), logos (reason), pneuma (breath or spirit), and pronoia (providence) are all names for the special form of matter that holds everything together. Thus Zeus is everywhere, as the Greeks have said. The Stoic god has been described as a ǃ˙perfectly good and wise gasǃ˘ or more exactly as ǃ˙intelligent, fiery breathǃ˘. The ǃ˙logosǃ˘ became another word in the Stoic system for god, since it maintains order.
We see that this pagan concept of god predated the so-called Christian era and was widely disseminated among the pagan Greeks of Stoic belief. By the use of allegory the Stoics sought to find their physical theories in the ancient mythology and in so doing promoted the allegorical method of interpretation. The allegorical method of interpreting sacred literature was adopted by the Jewish philosopher/rabbi Philo of Alexandria, who harmonized the Mosaic religion with pagan Greek philosophy. This corruption of monotheistic belief with the pantheistic paganism that was centered on the male deity Zeus (Dios) opened the way for the wholesale acceptance of the pagan Greek concept of god.
Philo has an elaborate ǃ˙Logosǃ˘ speculation. According to Philo, the Logos was the mind or reason of God, the locus of the ideas of Platonic philosophy. The Logos was God in his rational aspect, but the Logos also functioned as the head of the hierarchy of intermediaries between the world and God. An aspect of God himself, the Logos was not hypostatized as a person as in Christianity and certainly never became incarnate. It was Stoic influence that brought Logos into the physical world by the word becoming flesh.
We find this concept of ǃ˙Logosǃ˘ in the Gospel of John, verse one, ǃ˙In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.ǃ˘ This deity also existed with the Creator from the beginning, verse two, ǃ˙The same was in the beginning with God.ǃ˘ Here we find the convergence of Dios (Zeus) and Dios Nysos (Dionysus). The Father god and the Son god of the pagan Greeks found on the pages of ǃ˙GodǃÙs Wordǃ˘.

Again we go back to St. John DamasceneǃÙs book where he points out, ǃ˙I marvel how, when they behold their gods being sawn and chiseled by workmenǃÙs axes, growing old and dissolving through lapse of time, and molten in the pot, they are no gods. For when these skill not to work their own salvation, how can they take care of mankind? Nay, even the poets and philosophers among the Chaldeans, Greeks. and Egyptians, although by their poems and histories they desired to glorify their peopleǃÙs gods, yet they rather revealed and exposed their shame before all men. If the body of a man, consisting of many parts, loseth not any of its proper members, but, having an unbroken union with all its members, is in harmony with itself, how is the nature of God shall there be such warfare and discord? For if the nature of the gods were one, then ought not one god to persecute, slay or injure another? But if the gods were persecuted by other gods, and slain and plundered and killed with thunder-stones, then is their nature no longer one, but their wills are divided, and are all mischievous, so that not one among them is God. So it is manifest, 0 king, that all this history of the nature of the gods is error. Furthermore, how do the wise and eloquent among the Greeks fail to perceive that law givers themselves are judged by their own laws? For if their laws are just, then are their gods assuredly unjust, in that they have offended against law by murders, sorceries, adulteries, thefts and unnatural crimes. But, if they did well they have been framed in condemnation of the gods. But now the laws are good and just, because they encourage good and forbid evil; whereas the deeds of their gods offend against law. Their gods then are offenders against law; and all that introduce such gods as these are worthy of death and are ungodly. If the stories of the gods be myths, then are the gods mere words: but if the stories be natural, then are they that wrought or endured such things, no longer gods: if the stories be allegorical, then are the gods myths and nothing else. Therefore it hath been proven, 0 king that all these idols, belonging to many gods, are works of error and destruction. So it is not meet to call those gods that are seen, but cannot see: but it is right to worship as God him who is unseen and in the Maker of all mankind.ǃ˘

It is a pity that St. John Damascene did not realize that he too was guilty of promoting the same man-god concept he found such fault with. The mixing of truth with falsehood has been the tactic of Christian preachers since the time of St. Paul! It is so sad to know that there are still human beings following the remnants of the pagan Greek cults! What more proof do the so-called ǃ˙Christiansǃ˘ need than the ǃ˙greek-i-fledǃ˘ text they now possess? When they quote chapter and verse-John 3:16- about the ǃ˙lovingǃ˘ god that ǃ˙begotǃ˘ a son to ǃ˙saveǃ˘ mankind from ǃ˙perishingǃ˘ and to enjoy ǃ˙eternal lifeǃ˘, we must strongly object and show these deceived persons that they are contradicting their own bible in their mad effort to spread polytheism!
No ǃ˙loveǃ˘ from the ǃ˙pre-incarnate Jesusǃ˘ and the so-called ǃ˙fatherǃ˘ for those disobedient heathens of Sodom and Gomorrah! Allah sent Lot or Lut, may Allah be pleased with him, with commandments and warnings. When Allah was not obeyed by the majority then those who loved Allah and obeyed Allah were ǃ˙savedǃ˘ and the rest ǃ˙perishedǃ˘! Same for the people of Noah or Nuh, peace be upon him. When the people did not love Allah enough to obey, that is, submit their will to their Creator, then the promise of Allah became manifest and the wicked ǃ˙perishedǃ˘ No New Testament style ǃ˙loveǃ˘ for those who disobeyed AllahǃÙs prophets!

The fact that the ǃ˙greek-i-fledǃ˘ bible has reported that some of these prophets themselves committed great sins is proof of the corruption of the text by those working at the behest of the pagan Greek king Philidelphius! Nevertheless, we still find verses that dispel any idea that Allah can become a man.
Book of Numbers, chapter 23, verse 19, ǃ˙God is not a man, that He should lie.ǃ˘
And this idea that Allah ǃ˙begotǃ˘ a son contradicts this verse of the bible and shows the lying that has been going on in the name of God! More?
Isaiah 44, verse 8, ǃ˙is there a God besides me?ǃ˘
Hosea 11, verse 9, ǃ˙I am God., and not man.ǃ˘
Hosea 13, verse 4, ǃ˙Yet I [am]the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour besides me.ǃ˘
Isaiah 45, verse 22
Isaiah 45 verse 9, ǃ˘I am God there is none else.
We canǃÙt just say that the ǃ˙One Godǃ˘ concept is strictly an Old Testament idea, because we find verses declaring the ǃ˙Onenessǃ˘ of Allah in the New Testament also:
Mark 12, verse 32, ǃ˙one God., and none e1seǃÙ.
Why even the Messiah said so:
Mark 12, verse 29, ǃ˙And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, 0 Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:ǃÙ.
So the pagan idea that God so loved mankind enough to contradict his commandments is declared false even by the Messiah Isa, may Allah be pleased with him. And what does the bible say about this ǃ˙loveǃ˘:
Proverbs 8, verse 17, ǃ˙I love those that love meǃ˘.
The bible is telling you that this ǃ˙love thingǃ˘ is a sham. Christians are telling people that God killed himself for people that donǃÙt even know God much less love God.
What more, the bible tells you under what condition God would consider you His own:
Jeremiah 7, verse 23, ǃ˙Obey my voice, and I will be your Godǃ˘.
Love Allah by obeying His commandments and Allah will love you and save you from ǃ˙perishingǃ˘.

Your quotes of the Bible are incomplete as well. Bear with me as I explain:

If Christians believed that there were three gods and one god at the same time, that would be a contradiction, but this is a misconception that many people have about Christianity. Christians believe in one God manifest in three persons. One of the names God used in the Old Testament was Elohim, which is a plural noun. In various places, the Godhead uses the pronoun "we" and "us". Sure, this is strange sounding, but it is evident even in the Old Testament. God doesn't form himself to our concepts of Him; instead, our ideas about God should be determined according to His revelation to us. (I use the singluar pronoun because I am talking about God, not the persons of the Godhead as separate entities.) Quoting the Bible here and there as you do doesn't led support to your argument, because your quotes are incomplete. In its entirety, the Bible teaches that there is one God, but that God is manifested in three persons. Don't quote the Bible if you're not going to use it fairly.

As for the rest of your questions, they are answered in the discourse before you posted your long rant. Please at least read it, at it for fairness sake. I'll post some more relevant verses for your consideration.

Haji, your ranting doesn't remove a single stroke of the pen from the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah being "cut off" and bearing the punishment for the sins of mankind. Take a look at the prophecy given by the prophet Isaiah that I quoted above. Here are a few more quotes of the Bible for you to consider.

From the first letter of Peter, the Apostle of Jesus:

1 Peter 1:1-4, 8-25
     Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
     To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
     Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
     Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. . .
     Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
     Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

2 Peter 1:16-21
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
     For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep [a euphemism for saying that they have died.]. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
     For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God [grace = undeserved favor] I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

These were written by eye witnesses.

Berkana wrote: "Haji, your ranting doesn't remove a single stroke of the pen from the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah being "cut off" and bearing the punishment for the sins of mankind. Take a look at the prophecy given by the prophet Isaiah that I quoted above. Here are a few more quotes of the Bible for you to consider."
It must be obvious to you by now that the book you claim to follow was changed to suit the misconception you call Christianity. If all the historical evidence will not convince you then wait until death takes you and go before the Creator with your deeds. You promote the three persons as one god based on what? The corrupted bible contradicts you as the former posts clearly indicate. The historical record clearly shows that the bible was changed to suit the pagan Greek view. Still you refuse to admit the obvious - that G-d is one, no father nor son! What is your intention? To make pagan teachings of the Greeks and mistakes of the past the belief of mankind?
No matter how you RANT and RAVE, the result will be the same - G-d was, is and always will be one. You attempt to pass off the trinitarian doctrine as modified monotheisim, yet you go back to the same nonsense about a son. The Word, the bird and the one that heard the Word and sent the bird is not one. Call them persons or whatever the result is the same - pagan! That is why Muslims call you kaafir - because you cover the truth with falsehood and intentionally lie. Don't you know that the three in one doctrine has a history to it. That at early in the history of your faith, there was no such thing as a divine Jesus?

The whole idea of the Creator of the Universe assuming human form is for the purpose of ǃ˙atoningǃ˘ for the sins of humanity, we must ask, ǃ˙Why?ǃ˘ We cannot pretend that the pagan Greeks never offered human sacrifice to ǃ˙atoneǃ˘ for the ǃ˙sinsǃ˘ and gain the pleasure of their self-invented gods and goddesses. What we must reject is the idea that Allah is in the business of human sacrifice! Abraham, the father of the faithful (peace be upon him) was commanded by Allah to sacrifice his only begotten son at the time, Ishmael (peace be upon him). When these two prophets resolved to obey the command, the child was saved by divine intervention and the command was to sacrifice a ram instead. This test from Allah indicates that human sacrifice is not what is required or commanded to atone for oneǃÙs sins nor any other purpose. Why would the Almighty assume human form, allow Himself be humiliated then murdered on the cross, come back from the dead, go back to heaven in an abused human body that was acquired by way of birth from a human female, to sit at the right hand of the ǃ˙fatherǃ˘ in that abused body complete with thorn, nail and spear wounds so that He could prevent Himself from destroying the creatures He created and would himself judge as to which would go to heaven or jahanam (what the westerners call hell)! So much for PaulǃÙs teaching, Hebrews 13, verse 8-ǃ˘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.ǃ˘ This ǃ˙Christosǃ˘ is changing as he is supposed to become part of the ǃ˙holy mealǃ˘ of the Catholics. By coming to earth in bits and drops, that is flesh and blood, the whole idea about his ultimate return in one piece is upstaged! A strange thing has happen to this strict Creator who rewards and punishes. This Creator loved these creatures so much that in contradiction to all revealed scripture and the expressed nature of a Creator distinct from the creation, we are told that the Creator had just been waiting all that time to come to Earth as a bird and a man to ǃ˙saveǃ˘ future generations from punishment meted out by Himself! The "preincarnate Jesus" as the "son of god" would need a "preincarnate" mother of god. There is no proof from the bible to the existence of a consort of God at the preincarnate stage. This would mean that there would have to be a "three person in one god" male god and one female goddess. This is the logical conclusion to the trinity and an answer to the incarnation myth.

Anthropomorphism needs to be explained to those who wish to insist on the man-god or the son of god. Anthropomorphism (from the Greek anthropos,ǃ˘human beingǃ˘; morphe,ǃ˘shapeǃ˘), attribution of human form or qualities to that which is not human. In the history of religion, anthropomorphism is depicting God in a human image, with human bodily form and emotion. Mythology is exclusively concerned with anthropomorphic gods. Monotheistic religious thought holds that it is inappropriate to regard an omnipotent, omnipresent God as human. In order to speak of God, however, metaphorical language maybe employed. In philosophy and theology, seemingly anthropomorphic concepts and language are used because some rationalize it is impossible to think of God without attributing to him some human traits. In the Bible, God is endowed with physical characteristics and human emotions, but at the same time he is understood to be transcendent. The earliest critique of religious anthropomorphism in the West was made by Xenophanes, a Greek philosopher of the 5th century BC. Xenophanes observed that whereas the Ethiopians represented the gods as dark-skinned, the northerners in Thrace depicted the gods with red hair and blue eyes. He concluded that physical representations of the gods invariably reveal more about the mindset of the people who make them than they reveal about the divine. The Greek philosopher Plato likewise objected to a human representation of the gods; in the dialogue The Republic, he particularly opposed the attribution of human failings to divine beings. Both Xenophanes and Plato wished to purify religion by eliminating elements that they considered primitive and crude. Even as early as the 5th century B. C. the issue of race and God was commented on and researched.

The 19th century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel held that Greek anthropomorphic religion represented an improvement over the worship of gods in the shape of animals, a practice called theriomorphism (Greek therion,ǃ˘animalǃ˘; morphe,ǃ˘shapeǃ˘). Hegel also maintained that Christianity brought the notion of anthropomorphism to maturity by insisting not only that God assumed a human form, but also that Jesus Christ was both a fully human person as well as fully divine. Hegel misses the mark twice because the Greeks worshipped their gods believing that they could assume both human and animal form. Second, the bible does not teach with complete exclusivity a man-god nor command its readers to worship a man as god. On the contrary, it lays down the principles of belief and worship of the one God of Israel: no man-god for those who believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. The man-god concept would cancel all the previous commandments on the oneness of the Creator! God did not become a man to lie or die. Now let's deal with the history of the pagan concept of the man-god in detail.

"It must be obvious to you by now that the book you claim to follow was changed"

No, you haven't proved that. You are still feeding on anti-Christian propaganda by either Muslim militant or liberal theologians.

The doctrine with its foundation in the worship of Dios (Zeus) and his son Dionysus survived because the dionysic principle was retained in the culture of Europe and in the text of the bible. As pointed out before, the name itself is included in the text and preserved for succeeding generations in the writings about Paul as the name of his male convert in Athens. This allowed those Greek pagans to even retain the name which means ǃ˙belonging to Dionysusǃ˘. What! To claim to be a believer in the one true God, as taught by the Messiah, and to have a name that does not give glory to the Creator as the names in the Old Testament do, but instead gives glory, nay OWNERSHIP to the homosexual pagan deity noted for demon possession, drunkenness, and phallic chants! Moreover, the supposed birthday of the Messiah was set by the namesake of this demonic character on the very birthday of Dionysus himself-25th of December! Remember that was the day that the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes by his sacrificing a female hog on a pagan altar atop of the altar to the Most High to his pagan gods Dios and Dionysus-the father and the son! Any more telling evidence than this to the wholesale reversal of the beliefs and practices of the Jewish people and the Messiah (pbuh) could not be more pronounced! In addition, the individual mentioned above, Dionysius Exiguus, (a.k.a. Denis the Little), was a monk from Scythia Minor (Dobrudja in Romania) who was also responsible for setting the date for Easter. He was said to have perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin and worked to bring about a reconciliation between the churches of the Orient and the West. He lived in Rome at the end of the 5th century and was best known as a canonist. He was the compiler of the first canonical collection, the Dionysiana! What is important about this person is not just his name but what he did when he translated Greek text into Latin! He stressed the inviolability of the Canons of Nicaea, neglected to reproduce the four confessions of faith of the Council of Antioch. which accused the Nicene council of Sabellianism (paganism), and strove to establish definitively the supremacy of Rome! And this was shortly before the time of the coming of the last prophet, Muhammad (pbuh).