Compare the concepts of the original Christianity to ‘current’ Christianity

· Uncategorized

Trail along the lost track of Trinity: A Must Read: The History Of Beliefs In Christianity – A Journey from facts to fiction

Now let’s go and check the history and continue with…

The Truth Message – Part 4 – compare the concepts of the original Christianity to current-Christianity:

Jesus’ disciples were Jewish in stock and as such believed and practiced Law for salvation and justification. They were truly monotheistic followers and Jesus was just a Messiah to them.

The disciples of Jesus who learnt and understood Christianity directly from Jesus and witnessed it in the form of his life belonged to this stock (Jewish Monotheistic). They were the primary custodians of Christianity with deeply embedded roots in the holy soil of Jesus’ instructions and way of life. It was they who witnessed the Crucifixion and had seen Jesus survive from his attempted murder.

Mr. Tahir Ahmad, in chapter seven of his book, Christianity – a Journey from Facts to Fiction, writes about early doctrine of Christianity:

The doctrine of Trinity, which is one of the fundamental constituents of Christian dogma, was absent from Christianity during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. … Christian beliefs and philosophy in its early formative part was of Jewish stock. Jewish influence remained predominant throughout the early part of Christian history … with deeply embedded roots in the holy soil of Jesus’ instructions and way of life. … In the second phase of Christian development, St. Paul acquired the most pivotal character in giving Christianity a new philosophy and ideology. … The Western Church evolved along Pauline doctrinal lines whereas the Church in Jerusalem developed along monotheistic teachings.”

It’s a confirmed fact thatPaul’s followers abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the religious doctrines of the Romans. Of all the various doctrines which evolved during the formative stages of Christianity, only those who believed in the Nazarene philosophy can justifiably be given preference and called perfectly Christians. These early Christians were taught the meaning of Christianity by Jesus himself.’

Monotheism: The Nazarene Philosophy: The Original Christianity of the Christ

Ebionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, Mandeans, Nestorians and Elkasites were the original monotheistic sects in Christianity. Their philosophy has been referred to as the Nazarene philosophy which, ‘was characterized by strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and recognition of Jesus as the Messiah for them. It also included belief in the normal human birth of Jesus and hostility towards Pauline views. … Nazarene hierarchy escaped from Jerusalem after the destruction in 66 AD.

Early Theological Diversity: The books of the New Testament were written in the first century and, the first formal lists of the books of the New Testament are believed to have been published in 140 CE by Marcion, whereas the complete canon of the New Testament was approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE… Such diversity of books led to a parallel diversity in the prevailing faiths. Later when the Church had become the state religion of the Roman Empire, it forced the concept of Trinity on the rest of the Church in order to create a single unified Church. Those who rejected were forced to flee into the deserts of Egypt.

So you see, history records that the early followers of Christianity who had lived, heard and practiced the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him), had NO concept of the doctrine of Trinity, Atonement and Original Sin. The belief that God is three distinct persons in one being, and that these three persons are eternal and equal in nature, etc were incorporated by the first Ecumenical Council of the Church in 325 CE.

Trinity was actually a tradition of mystic and pagan religions and it penetrated into Christianity over centuries.

Charles B Waite mentions in his book, History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred, about the doctrine of Trinity, “It was of very great antiquity, and generally received by the Gothic and Celtic Nations.”

Bible confirms GOD IS ONE:

Amazing is the fact that Bible itself describes God as One: Many verses can be quoted from various books of the Bible including the New Testament about One God. For example;

Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

Corinthians 8:4 is, “We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.”

St. Paul – An Apostle? Let’s C.

The word ‘Apostle’ (with capital A) refers to any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot & Judas Iscariot.

Then where did St. Paul come from? Why is he called the Apostle? 13th?

About St. Paul it is said,

“He never walked with Jesus of Nazareth, yet he traversed the Roman Empire proclaiming him the divine Christ.

He never heard Jesus teach, yet he became Christianity’s most influential expositor of doctrine.

He spoke little about Jesus’ life, yet he attached cosmic significance to his death and Resurrection.

The Apostle Paul, some scholars now believe, was more instrumental in the founding of Christianity than anyone else–even Jesus himself!

…even Jesus himself! Hm.

Contrary to the above statement there were men who actually lived with Jesus, may peace be on them, in his life and death.

Professor Karl Adam in his book, the Spirit of Catholicism, writes, “they (Apostles of Jesus) were 12 in number: not more not less!”

The Revelation 21:14 narrates, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

So, there is no scriptural basis to call Paul an apostle.

St Paul is not an apostle of Jesus SO do not call him as such!

St. Paul pioneered a new religion and named it Christianity which was not the religion of Jesus.

He preached Trinitarian philosophy as opposed to genuine monotheism, abolished Law & originated new guidelines for salvation. He simplified religion in to believing and confessing (faith) alone. He changed laws related to diet, circumcision and sacrifices to segregate Christianity from Judaism. He infiltrated Pagan ideas in to the teachings of Jesus in the name of universalism. For such reasons President Thomas Jefferson once wrote that St. Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. How true!

British biographer A. N. Wilson, in his book, Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, argues that Paul’s Risen Christ had little to do with the historical Jesus.

St. Paul’s New Outlook that Justification is through Faith Alone – is absolutely wrong!

Paul declares: “Man is not justified by works of the law but ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO ONE BE JUSTIFIED” (2: 16) … We are justified by his grace as a GIFT, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3: 24)

This is the most popular philosophy originated by St Paul. According to St Paul justification, salvation and acceptance by God is achieved through believing in Jesus (Faith) alone and Law has no role in it. His Holiness Pope Benedicts describes it as ‘St Paul’s New Outlook’ or ‘The Good News’ or ‘Gospel.’

St Paul has given repeated messages regarding an ‘easy fix’ for Justification and salvation. ‘Gospel’ or ‘Good News’ is quoted by him in: (Galatians 3:10-14, Ephesians 2:15). “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:9) This is called atonement –that Jesuss will ‘piggyback’ all the Christians to heaven!  Pathetic!

Dr Michael S. Horton, Ph.D., University of Coventry and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford not only denies ‘Justification by Faith Alone’ but also describes how the concept was rejected by Council of Trent in 1563. He writes:

‘The ‘good news,’ which alone is ‘the power of God unto salvation’ was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned. In the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially and, according to her own commitment down to the present moment, irreversibly, declared that the Gospel announced was actually heretical. The most relevant Canons are the following:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins… let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Practically we see that the easy formula for salvation has not worked over centuries.

Indeed, works are required for justification because man is justified by works and not by faith alone … Faith without works is counterfeit.

Everyone is justified by deeds and actions and is accountable for what one does. One’s actions speak louder than faith. We have free will and can nourish or perish our salvation.

“No one can bear the burden of another.” (35:19) And we have already seen according to Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-21, and Micah 6:7-8, a man is responsible for his own sin.

The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither the children put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sins. [DEUTERONOMY 24:16]

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as mortal and esteemed him as righteous through the growth of his character. As Jews, they observed the Sabbath; every detail of the Law, and did not accept the Pauline idea of salvation through faith alone.

BBC’s Official website on Christianity talking about early followers of Jesus writes:

“These earliest followers of Jesus were devout Jews who continued to offer sacrifice at the Temple and to observe the whole Jewish Law. Essentially, they were a small sect within Judaism.”

In fact the Originals were at war with Paul for going against the Law as it is seen in following verses, “When they saw him in the temple… laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place.” (Acts 21:27-29)

Abdullah Smith writes, “The Jewish Christians reacted strongly to Paul, they rejected his pagan ideas of the ‘divinity of Christ,” and they rejected the concept of the ‘divine sonship’ of Jesus, whom they regarded as a great Prophet and Messenger. The Jewish Christians rejected Paul’s version of ‘Christ,’ to them the ‘Christ’ was anointed and fully human.”

Paul on Atonement of Jesus:

From the Biblical accounts of the New Testament, it is determined that Jesus (as) was put on the cross when he was observing the feast of the Passover (Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16, Luke 22:7-15, John 18:28,39, 19:14).

But Jesus did not predict or indicate that this would happen. So where does the concept of Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind as the paschal or sacrificial Lamb originate?

It emerged from the Christians celebrating the death of Jesus with a Paschal meal (Eucharist), on the lunar date of the Jewish Passover:

Paul’s 1 Corinthians. 5:7-8. 20 says: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

These verses prove that it was Paul’s teaching to replace the Old Testament Passover. His New Testament concept of the Passover allowed Christ to supersede the paschal lamb. Despite Paul’s claims to love and honour Jesus (as), he did not hesitate to replace the Old Testament Passover (which Jesus(as) and his disciples followed), with his new concept.

Wake Up Christians! A lie is a lie no matter who speaks it!

The Christian faith underwent such a change that even if the Messiah himself were to return, he would fail to recognize it.

It is most astonishing that the people who had been enjoined to follow the Torah, so brazenly flouted its commandments. For instance, it is nowhere written in the Gospels that though the eating of pork was made unlawful in the Torah as: I [the Messiah] make it lawful for you; or that though the Torah prescribes circumcision, I repeal this commandment.

How could it be lawful to introduce into religion what had not been uttered by Jesus (as)?

Soren Kierkgaard who crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, had come to be regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in contemporary thought, had the nerve to suggest:

“It is not the business of any Christian writer or preacher to dilute Christianity to suit the general educated public. The doctrine of the incarnation was to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, and so will it always be, for the doctrine not only transcends reason; it the paradox par excellence; and it can be affirmed only by faith, with passionate inwardness and interest. The substitution of reason for faith means the death of Christianity.”

It will be hard to hide behind the veil of ‘faith’ and run away from reason and rationality. It is self evident that faith cannot be divorced from reason. If man needed faith alone, any cult would be as good as any religion and all human affairs will completely collapse.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

If what Gibbon says be true we have all the reasons to try to shed our illusions and biases and carefully examine Christianity.

The dogmas of Trinity and sonship of God belong to the primitive times and are also found in the remnants of Greek and Roman mythology.

Christian apologists try to use the label of ‘facts,’ to create credibility for the hearsay evidence that they present for resurrection. But, the ‘facts’ of one apologist differ in some ways from the ‘facts’ of another apologist and in this comparison we can see that all the evidence mounts to no more than hearsay, which is antonym for ‘fact.’

Additionally, different apologists will acknowledge, in an overt or occult manner, vulnerability of different aspects of the resurrection story. If these confessions are collected in one single article the whole case of resurrection disappears in thin air like the human part of Jesus allegedly disappeared in thin air at the time of ascension.

Apologies if I am offending anyone…!


The paradox of Christian belief about the nature of Jesus as articulated in their theology and expressed by most Christians is aptly demonstrated in the following paragraphs:

When discussing beliefs about Jesus (peace be upon him), almost all Christians agree that Jesus is the “Son of God” in the literal, physical sense and the second “person” in the Trinitarian godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. While some Christians believe that Jesus is not God (but how that could be? Check John 1:1 and 14?!

So who is Jesus & Who is God? Is God the Father? OR the Son? OR the Holy Spirit? Or Is God the Creator, the complete triangle of Trinity as a whole or are there three well-defined Gods? Or Creators?

God of the Christian dogma is counter-intuitive, against laws of nature and human conscience. With the Christian mysteries of Trinity, Resurrection and Eucharist, Christian understanding of God never offers any satisfaction to the human heart & mind: The unadulterated human nature revolts against wafer being body of Jesus and God by extension and wine being blood of Jesus or God as in the Catholic understanding of Eucharist.

This is the confusion in fundamentals of doctrine which the Christians have never been able to correct or overcome the dissemination of what is considered “standard” Christian belief! And you wonder why the usual answer is “Oh, just don’t think about it” or “It’s a mystery, so don’t try to understand it — you can’t — but you have to believe it or else you go to hell. Forever.”

…and that, dear reader, is why Christians are converting into atheists!

And Again… Did you know?

Jesus did not become god until the last canonical gospel, the Gospel of John?

Almost 60-70 years had passed since Jesus was put on the cross. The first two generations of the committed believers had died. More and more pagans were joining Christianity. The stage was set to elevate Jesus to divine status. However, the earlier gospels, Mathew, Mark and Luke, known as the synoptic gospels, as they are similar to each other, were written earlier and did not exaggerate Jesus’ status, as much. The very contrast between the synoptic and the non-synoptic Gospel of John should be an epiphany to any open minded Christian. Several reasons can be outlined for reading the four Gospels separately and independently rather than conflating them. Here, let me present one simple reason before we move on with the rest of the discussion. When the Gospel of Mark was written, the author meant it to be an independent testimony, as for 15-30 years there was no Matthew, Luke or John. It was an independent book and not an addendum or appendix to anything else!

Any mention of Jesus’ divinity even in the gospel of John is also only implicit and not explicit and there are many verses in John as well from which lack of Jesus’ divinity can be argued. Nowhere in the Bible, has Jesus taught the disciples to worship him!

As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did. I hate seeing my sacred text flattened out, edited down and used as a prop to support a select few political positions and platforms.

And yet evangelicals have grown so accustomed to talking about the Bible this way that we hardly realize we’re doing it anymore. We talk about “biblical families,” “biblical marriage,” “biblical economics,” “biblical politics,” “biblical values,” “biblical stewardship,” “biblical voting,” “biblical manhood,” “biblical womanhood,” even “biblical dating” to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics – that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them.

But the Bible is not a position paper.

The Bible is an ancient holy collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bible’s cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

And again: I have come to regard with some suspicion those who claim that the Bible never troubles them. I can only assume this means they haven’t actually read it.

I humbly advise: My dear Christians, it is time to move on from Trinitarianism, not to atheism, but to genuine Unitarianism. And well, if you do not choose to understand me, forgive my impertinence.


Let’s have some real-life examples now of people who struggled with corrupted form of Christianity, shall we?


Past example:

Origen (c.185-254 CE) was one of the most influential Christian teachers and philosophers who was born at a time (3rd century) when Christianity was still trying to break loose from Judaism and form its own identity. His views and teachings had a profound effect in the making of this religion. At this time, the concept and nature of Jesus (as) was also under scrutiny and there was no common understanding on this subject across the entire Christian world.

Trinity was not a concept that Jesus (as) himself had talked about, so it was even harder for the scholars that followed to make sense of it. Atonement was also new and strange term for them.

Scholars were basically trying to understand the nature of Jesus (as) as there was confusion over…

Whether He was a Jew or not?

Whether He was human or divine? And…

What happened to Him after the crucifixion? Where did he vanish?

Now you know what these lines from the divine book meant: … (they) are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but pursue only a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it. (Ch. 4:V. 158-159)

Gwatkin, Vol. II, p.183 quotes This dilemma: ‘Either Christ is in the fullest sense divine, or else he is not.

If he is, the Christians worship two gods: if he is not, they worship a creature. Either way there was no escape from the charge of polytheism.

Origen, De Principiis, I, Preface 4 explains the then understanding:

In regard to him {Jesus} it is not yet clearly known whether he is to be thought of as begotten or unbegotten, or as being himself also a Son of God or not.’

So you see, there was no common understanding between different versions available at his time, just in 185 CE. Almost all interpretations were vague! This highlights the uncertainty that existed in the 3rd century amongst the greatest Christian minds over concepts like Trinity and Atonement which are now taken for granted in the Christian world 2000 years after the events of Jesus (pbuh). Jesus!

Many of the basic tenets around Trinity and Atonement which are accepted as basic facts 2000 years after Jesus (as) were not seen in this way just 200 years after the Crucifixion. If these were unclear just 100 to 200 years after the life of Jesus (pbuh), this casts a HUGE doubt over them now.

Did you ever care to test these stories? Well, a few did…

A recent example: Sir Isaac Newton:

One’s faith should be examined from time to time according to the dictates of rationality. If the two appear conflicting, one must follow reason. This attitude is best illustrated in Newton’s treatment of Trinity.

As long as he did not consciously and scientifically examine his inherited religious views, he continued to remain a devotee of the doctrine. But when at a later stage he decided to put his faith to the test of reason and rationality, he was left with no option but to reject the dogma of Trinity which in view had failed to the test of reason. In Newton’s eyes worshipping Christ was idolatry. He recognized Christ as a divine mediator (prophet or messenger) between God and humankind (R.S. Westfall).

However, for accepting and popularizing this truth he was severely targeted by the orthodox Christian Clergy … Thus he became the all-time greatest victim of prejudices of the Christian church sacrificed at the altar of cross; may his soul rest in peace.


Click to read: The Truth Message – Part 5 – Is Jesus the Son of God? Or third of the three? Or a Prophet? 

%d bloggers like this: