In the Name of Allah, The Most Compassionate The Most Merciful
And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." Nay -whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good - He will get his reward with his Sustainer; on such shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.
Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30), therefore, is not Jesus the same, or, "co-equal" in status with his Father?
In Greek, 'heis' means 'one' numerically (masc.) 'hen' means 'one' in unity or essence (neut.) Here the word used by John is 'hen' and not 'heis'. The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit. neuter) a unity, or, one essence.
If one wants to argue that the word 'hen' supports their claim for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, please invite that person's attention to the following verse:
Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one." (Jn 17:22).
Here also the Greek word used is 'hen'. If any one was to consider / regard / believe the Father and Jesus Christ to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30, then that person should also be prepared to consider / regard / believe "them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with the Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22. I don't think that individual would be prepared to make the disciples (students) "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.
The unity was of the authorized divine message that originated from the Father, given to Jesus as His messenger and finally passed on by Jesus to his disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the Father had given him to do. (Jn. 17:4)
Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (Jn. 14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim of Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.
Jesus said: "I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me." (Jn. 14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE?
Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." (John 14:2). The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Obviously, the prophets that came before him and the one to come after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective followers. The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven. Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion. It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the "DESTINATION". Jesus said; "I am the door" to find the pasture. (Jn. 10:9). A sheep that walks through the "door" will find the pasture. A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture. One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her journey, will be out in the open without any shelter.
Jesus said; "Not every one that says to me; Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven." (Mt. 7:21).
Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9), does this not prove that Jesus Christ and his Father were one and the same?
One day to prove a point and settle an argument, Jesus picked up a child and said to his disciples; "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me;" (Luke 9:48). Does this make the child Messiah?
Jesus said;
"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3).
The call of sincerity demands that if believing in the Truth is the honest intention then one could only pass an ethical judgment after reflecting upon other relevant texts.
Jesus said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:16).
During his ministry, Jesus repeatedly said he was sent by his Father.
The Bible reveals; "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16); should you not believe in Jesus to have eternal life?
Of course, we Muslims believe in Jesus for what he was. But, we do not believe in what he was not. We believe Jesus was a "Messiah"; "Spirit from God"; "Word of God"; "the righteous Prophet" as well as "the Messenger of God" and "the son of Virgin Mary". But, we do not believe Jesus was "the begotten son of God." The truth of the matter is apostle John never ever wrote; Jesus was "the begotten" son of God in the original Greek text. The most recent edition of the revised King James Version has omitted the word "begotten" from the above text.
Please obtain a copy of the Gideon Bible' from any Hotel or a Motel near you. Copies are distributed free since 1899, all over the world, by The Gideon Society. In the beginning of this famous Bible, John 3:16 is translated in 26 popular world languages. You may be amazed to discover that in the English translation, the editors have used the traditionally accepted term "His only begotten son." Whereas, in several other languages the editors have used the term "His unique son" or "His one of a kind son." In 1992, when I discovered this textual variations, I wrote letters to various universities in North America requesting them to confirm the original Greek term used by John. Below is a copy of the response received from The George Washington University:-
John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word monogenes' in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind". As a result, "unique" is a good translation. The reason you sometimes find a translation that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an ancient heresy within the church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term monogenes' into Latin as unigenitus' ("only begotten"). Paul B. Duff, 22 April, 1992.
Professor Duff's response was based upon Anchor Bible', volume 29, page 13-14. The Greek term for "begotten" is gennao' as found in Mt. 1:2, which John did not use.
Jesus said to Mary; "...go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father..." (John 20:17). This verse demonstrates that the usage of term Father' by Jesus was not in a physical sense but was purely metaphorical for the Creator. As for Jesus being a "unique son", he, unlike us, was created by the Creator without a physical Father.
Jesus said: "Truly, truly. I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3); I am a "born again" Christian, are you a "born again" Muslim?
The truth of the matter is apostle John did not use the phrase "born again". The Greek text reveals, the phrase used by John is "born from above". The Greek word used by John is anothen' (ano' + then'). ano' means above' and the suffix then' denotes from'. Hence, what Jesus said was "unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And, that sounds logical. Since none of the living creature is "born from above", no one can see the kingdom heaven during his life time. The concept of being "born again" to see the kingdom of heaven is an innovation to instill the concept of Baptism. In the most recently revised King James Version the text reads; "being born from above." The same word anothen' appears in the same Gospel and in the same chapter in verse 31. Here the editors have translated the word as "from above" and not "again". To enter the Kingdom of Heaven one has to keep the Commandments. Please read Mt. 5:19, quoted below. God's distinguished Command known as the Covenant of Circumcision' (physically, **"in the flesh of your foreskin"**) was an everlasting Covenant (Compact, Treaty) between God and man. See Genesis 17:10-14. Can an everlasting Treaty be abrogated or revoked unilaterally? If not, how do the uncircumcised Christians expect to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Did Jesus abrogate the Command? He was circumcised in the flesh (Luke 2:21).
Jesus said; "Whoever then annuls (discards) one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19).
Jesus said; "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19); does this not prove that the Doctrine of Trinity' and its present day formula was communicated and promulgated by Jesus Christ himself?
With all due respect, we tend to disagree in view of the following compelling evidences:- Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, is universally welcomed and considered to be the standard reference book for the students of the Bible. Commenting on the above verse it records; "This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)." Tom Harpur, author of several bestsellers and a former professor of New Testament, writes in his book For Christ's Sake';
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptise people using these words - baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone." The above command (authentic or otherwise) does not indicate that the three names mentioned in the formula are or were, "co-equal" in their status, as well as, were "co-eternal" in the time frame, to conform with the acknowledged Doctrine of Trinity'.
If the Father and His Son were both in "existence" from the Day One, and no one was, a micro second before or after, and, no one was "greater or lesser" in status, than why is one called the Father and the other His begotten Son? Did the act of "Begetting" take place? If YES, where was the "Begotten Son" before the act? If NO, why call him the "Begotten Son"?
"And Peter said to them, Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'" (Acts 2:38). It is most unlikely that apostle Peter would have disobeyed the specific command of Jesus Christ for baptizing in the three names and baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
Apostle John in his first Epistle, chapter 5 and verse 7 wrote:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."; is this not a fair testimony to acknowledge the Doctrine of Trinity'?
The text quoted above does appear in the older editions of the Kings James Version, but has been omitted in the most recent edition of the Revised Version. It does not appear in the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible and the Phillips Modern English Bible because the above quoted text does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts.
Renowned historian Edward Gibbon calls the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'. Peakes commentary on the subject reads; "The famous interpolation after "three witnesses" is not printed even in RSV., and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.
Notwithstanding the above rejections, the verse that follows the quoted text reads in KJV; "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:8). Are these three witnesses "co-equal"? Can blood be substituted with water? Can water be regarded as the same in any respect with the Spirit? Just as the spirit, the blood and the water are three separate entities, so are the first three witnesses, namely; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost).
Jesus said: "He who believes in the son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36); are you not under the wrath of God for not being a follower of Christ - a Christian, by belief?
It is an interesting question. In fact, we Muslims should be asking the question to you the followers of Christ. Do the vast majority of Christians truthfully believe Christ for what he said he was, and, truly understand his commands and obey them? We believe, most of the followers who claim to be Christians do not even understand the truth behind calling their Leader "Christ" and themselves "Christians". The above verse has two parts. Belief' and Obedience'. On the subject of Belief in Christ', Jesus asked his disciples; "But who do you say that I am? And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God." (Luke 9:20). Peter did not say God or a god.
We Muslims truly believe Jesus was "The Christ (al-Masih) of God". The expression "The Christ of God" literally means; "The one that was anointed by God himself". Please go back in time and think. God performed the ceremony of anointing (physically or spiritually) and for that reason, Jesus became "The Christ of God". Now may I please ask you a simple question. Who is greater and exalted; the one who anointed, or, the one who got anointed? Since God anointed Jesus, God is the One that IS greater and exalted than Jesus, which we Muslims do believe. Secondly, did Jesus anoint God? If not, how can Jesus Christ be "co-equal" with the one who made him Holy (Christ)?
"...Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint,..." (Acts 4:27 - New American Standard Bible).
This leaves no room for doubt that Jesus, who was anointed, was a Servant of God'. Besides, there are also other verses in the Bible that declare Jesus; God's Servant'. Those who claim Jesus **acted** as a Bond Servant have nothing in the preaching and teachings of **Jesus** to back them up.
Now let us go to the second part of the quoted verse; "obeying the Christ". Please read the following verse and ask yourself a question; have I obeyed?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes **Him** who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life". John 5:24
Have I believed and placed my trust basically, fundamentally and predominately in **Him** or in Jesus?
Jesus said; "But I do not seek my glory; there is One who seeks and judges." John 8:51. Who is this "One"? Have you basically and essentially glorified that "One" who seeks the glory or Jesus who does not?
Please remember, as per the above verse, that "One" will be the Judge on the Day of Judgment and not Jesus. We have believed the above verse of Jesus. Please read the verse quoted by you and then think about the "wrath of God" - the One who is going to be the final Judge.
In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read; "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."; does not the use of terms "us" and "our" prove that the God which created man was not a