Christian-Jews-Muslims and Concept of God

Part 1

There are two fundamental points between Islam and Christianity which,for the sake of the truth and the peace of the world, deserved a very serious and deep investigation. As these two religions claim their origin from one and the same source, it would follow that no important point of controversy between them should be allowed to exist. Both these great religions believe in the existence of the Deity and in the covenant made between God and the Prophet Abraham. On these two principal points a thoroughly conscientious and final agreement must be arrived at between the intelligent adherents of the two faiths. Are we poor and ignorant mortals to believe in and worship one God, or are we to believe in and fear a plurality of Gods? Which of the two, Christ or Prophet Muhammad, is the object of the Divine Covenant? These two questions must be answered once for all. It would be a mere waste of time here to refute those who ignorantly or maliciously suppose the God as mentioned in Islam to be different from the true God and only a fictitious deity of Prophet Muhammad’ s own creation. If the Christian priests and theologians knew their Scriptures in the original Hebrew instead of in translations as the Muslims read their Quran in its Arabic text, they would clearly see that Allah is the same ancient Semitic name of the Supreme Being who revealed and spoke to Adam and all the prophets. Allah is the only Self -Existing, Knowing, Powerful Being. He encompasses, fills every space, being and thing; and is the source of all life, knowledge and force. Allah is the Unique Creator, Regulator and Ruler of the universe. He is absolutely One. The essence, the person and nature of Allah are absolutely beyond human comprehension, and therefore any attempt to define His essence is not only futile but even dangerous to our spiritual welfare and faith; for it will certainly lead us into error.


The trinitarian branch of the Christian Church, for about seventeen centuries, has exhausted all the brains of her saints and philosophers to define the Essence and the Person of the Deity; and what have they invented? All that which Athanasi uses, Augustines and Aquinas’s have imposed upon the Christians “under the pain of eternal damnation” to believe in a God who is “the third of three”! Allah, in His Holy Quran, condemns this belief in these solemn words:-“Because the unbelievers are those who say: ’ Allah is one of three.’ There is but One God. If they do not desist in what they say, a painful punishment will afflict those of them that disbelieve.” (Quran Ch.5 v73).
The reason why the orthodox Muslim scholars have always refrained from defining God’ s Essence is because His Essence transcends all attributes in which it could only be defined. Allah has many Names which in reality are only adjectives derived from His essence through its various manifestations in the universe which He alone has formed. We call Allah by the appellations Almighty, Eternal , Omnipresent, Omniscient, Merciful , and so forth, because we conceived the eternity, omnipresence, universal knowledge, mercifulness, as emanating from His essence and belonging to Him alone and absolutely. He is alone the infinitely Knowing, Powerful , Living, Holy, Beautiful , Good, Loving, Glorious, Terrible. Avenger, because it is from Him alone that emanate and flow the qualities of knowledge, power, life, holiness, beauty and the rest. God has no attributes in the sense we understand them. With us an attribute or a property is common to many individuals of a species, but what is God’s is His alone, and there is none other to share it with Him. When we say, “Solomon is wise, powerful , just and beautiful,” we do not ascribe exclusively to him all wisdom, power, justice and beauty. We only mean to say that he is relatively wise as compared with others of his species, and that wisdom too is relatively his attribute in common with the individuals belonging to his class.
To make it more clear, a divine attribute i s an emanation of God, and therefore an activity. Now every divine action is nothing more or less than a creation.  It is also to be admitted that the divine attributes, in as much as they are emanations, posit time and a beginning; consequently when Allah said: “Be, and it was” – or He uttered, His word in time and in the beginning of the creation. This is what the Sufi s term “aql -kul l “, or universal intelligence, as the emanation of the “aql awwal “, namely, the “first intelligence.” Then the “nafs-kull “, or the “universal soul ” that was the first to hear and obey this divine order, emanated from the “first soul ” and transformed the universe.


This reasoning would lead us to conclude that each act of God displays a,divine emanation as His manifestation and particular attribute, but it is not His Essence or Being. God is Creator, because He created in the beginning of time, and always creates. God spoke in the beginning of time just as He speaks in His own way always. But as His creation is not eternal or a divine person, so His Word cannot be considered eternal and a divine Person. The Christians proceed further, and make the Creator a divine father and His Word a divine son; and also, because He breathed life into His creatures, He is surnamed a divine Spirit, forgetting that logically He could not be father before creation, nor “son” before He spoke, and neither “Holy Ghost” before He gave life. I can conceive the attri butes of God through His works at manifestations a posteriori , but of his eternal and a prior attributes posses no conception whatever, nor do I imagine any human intelligence to be able to comprehend the nature of an eternal attribute and its relationship to the essence of God. In fact, God has not revealed to us the nature of His Being in the Holy Scriptures nor in the human intellect. The attributes of God are not to be considered as distinct and separate divine entities or personalities, otherwise we shall have, not one trinity of persons in the Godhead, but several dozen of trinities. An attribute until it actually emanates from its subject has no existence. We cannot qualify the subject by a particular attribute before that attribute has actually proceeded from it and is seen. Hence we say “God is Good” when we enjoy His good and kind action; but we cannot describe Him – properly speaking as “God is Goodness,” because goodness is not God, but His action and work. It is for this reason that the Quran always attributes to Allah the adjectival appellations, such as the Wise, the Knowing, the Merciful , but never with such descriptions as “God is love ,knowledge, word,” and so forth; for love is the action of the lover and not the lover himself , just as knowledge or word is the action of the knowing person and not himself . I particularly insist on this point because of the error into which have fallen those who maintain the eternity and distinct personality of certain attributes of God. The Verb or the Word of God has been held to be a distinct person of the Deity; whereas the word of God can have no other signification than an expression of His Knowledge and Will . The Quran, too, i s called “the Word of God,” and some early Muslim doctors of law asserted that it was eternal and uncreated. The same appellation is also given to Jesus Christ in the Quran -Kalimatun minho, i .e. “a Word from Him” (Ch.3 v45). But it would be very  irreligious to assert that the Word or Logos of God is a distinct person, and that it assumed flesh and became incarnate in the shape of a man of Nazareth or in the form of a book, the former called “the Christ” and the latter “the Quran”! To sum up this subject, I insistently declare that the Word or any other imaginable attribute of God, not only is it not a distinct Divine entity or individuality, but also it could have no actual (in actu) existence prior to the beginning of time and creation. The first verse with which St. Johns Gospel commences was of ten refuted by the early Unitarian writers, who rendered its true reading as follows: “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God’ s.”


It will be noticed that the Greek form of the genitive case “Theou” i .e, “God’ s” (1) was corrupted into “Theos”; that is, “God,” in the nominative form of the name! It is also to be observed that the clause “In the beginning was the word” expressly indicates the origin of the word which was not before the beginning! By the “word of God” is not meant a separate and distinct substance, coeval and coexistent with the Almighty,but saying of His Knowledge  and Will when He uttered the word Kun, namely, “Be.” When God said Kun, the worlds became; when He said Kun for His Words to be recorded in the Protected Tablets by the pen it became again. By His saying: “Be,” Jesus was created in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and so on  whenever He wills to create a thing He but only says “Be,” to it and it becomes. The Christian auspicatory formula: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” does not even mention the name of God! And this is the Christian God! The Nestorian and Jacobite formula, which consists of ten syllables exactly like the Muslim “Bismillahi ,” is thus to be transliterated: Bshim Abha wo Bhra ou-Ruha d-Qudsha, which has the same meaning as that contained in all other Christian formulas. The Quranic formula, on the other hand, which expresses the foundation of the Islamic truth i s a great contrast to the Trinitarians’ formula: Bis- millahi ’ r-Rahmani ’ r-Rahim; that is: “In the Name of the Most Merciful and Compassionate Allah.”


The Christian Trinity  in as much as it admits a plurality of persons in the Deity, attributes distinct personal properties to each person; and makes use of family names similar to those in the pagan mythology cannot be accepted as a true conception of the Deity. Allah is neither the father of a son nor the son of a father. He has no mother, nor is He self  made. The belief in “God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost” is a flagrant denial of the Oneness of God, and an audacious confession in three imperfect beings who, united or separately, cannot be the true God. Mathematics as a positive science teaches us that a unit is no more nor less than one; that one is never equal to one plus one plus one; in other words, one cannot be equal to three, because one is the third of the three. In the same way, one is not equal to a third. And vice versa, three are not equal to one, nor can a third be equal to a unit. The unit is the basis of all numbers, and a standard for the measurements and weights of all dimensions, distances, quantities and time. In fact, all numbers are aggregates of the unit 1. Ten is an aggregate of so many equal units of the same kind.


Those who maintain the unity of God in the trinity of persons tell us that “each person is omnipotent, omnipresent ,eternal and perfect God; yet there are not three omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect Gods, but one omnipotent . . . God!” If there i s no sophistry in the above reasoning then we shall present this “mystery” of the churches by an equation:- . God = 1 God + 1 God + 1 God; therefore: 1 God = 3 Gods. In the first place, one god cannot equal three gods, but only one of them. Secondly, since you admit each person to be perfect God like His two associates, your conclusion that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 i s not mathematical , but an absurdity! You are either too arrogant when you attempt to prove that three units equal one unit; or too cowardly to admit that three ones equal three ones. In the former case you can never prove a wrong solution of a problem by a false process; and in the second you have not the courage to confess your belief in three gods. Besides, we all Muslims and Christians bel i eve that God is Omnipresent, that He fills and encompasses every space and particle. Is it conceivable that all the three persons of the Deity at the same time and separately encompass the universe, or is it only one of them at the time? To say “the Deity does this” would be no answer at all . For Deity is not God, but the state of being God, and therefore a quality. Godhead is the quality of one God; it is not susceptible of plurality nor of diminution. There are no godheads but one Godhead, which is the attribute of one God alone. Then we are told that each person of the trinity has some particular attributes which are not proper to the other two. And these attributes indicate  according to human reasoning and language – priority and posteriority among them. The Father always holds the first rank, and is prior to the Son. The Holy Ghost is not only posterior as the third in the order of counting but even inferior to those from whom he proceeds. Would it not be considered a sin of heresy if the names of the three persons were conversely repeated? Will not the signing of the cross upon the countenance or over the elements of the Eucharist be considered impious by the Churches if the formula be reversed thus: “In the name of the Holy Ghost, and of the Son, and of the Father”? For if they are absolutely equal and coeval , the order of precedence need not be so scrupulously observed. The fact is that the Popes and the General Councils have always condemned the Sabelian doctrine which maintained that God is one but that He manifested Himself as the Father or as the Son or as the Holy Spirit, being always one and the same person. Of course, the religion of Islam does not endorse or sanction the Sabelian views. God manifested Jamal or beauty in Christ, Jelal or Glory and Majesty in Prophet Muhammad, and Wisdom in Solomon, and so on in many other objects of nature, but none of those prophets are gods neither the beautiful scenery of nature are gods. The truth is that there is no mathematical exactitude, no absolute equality between the three persons of the Trinity. If the Father were in every respect equal to the Son or the Holy Spirit, as the unit 1 is positively equal to another figure 1, then there would necessarily be only one person of God and not three, because a unit is not a fragment or fraction nor a multiple of itself . The very difference and relationship that is admitted to exist between the persons of the Trinity leaves no shadow of doubt that they are neither equal to each other nor are they to be identified with one another. The Father begets and is not begotten; the Son is begotten and not a father; the Holy Ghost is the issue of the other two persons; the first person is described as creator and destroyer; the second as savior or redeemer, and the third as life giver.



Consequently none of the three is alone the Creator, the Redeemer and the Life-giver. Then we are told that the second person is the Word of the first Person, becomes man and is sacrificed on the cross to satisfy the justice of his father, and that his incarnation and resurrection are operated and accomplished by the third person. In conclusion, I must remind Christians that unless they believe in the absolute Oneness of God, and renounce the belief in the three persons, they are certainly unbelievers in the true God. Strictly speaking, Christians are polytheists ,only with this exception, that the gods of the heathen are false and imaginary, whereas the three gods of the Churches have a distinct character, of whom the Father – as another epithet for Creator – is the One true God, but the son is only a prophet and worshiper of God, and the third person one of the innumerable holy spirits in the service of the Almighty God. In the Old Testament, God is called Father because of His being a loving Creator and Protector, but as the Churches abused this Name, the Quran has justly refrained from using it. The Old Testament and the Quran condemn the doctrine of three persons in God; the New Testament does not expressly hold or defend it, but even if it contains hints and traces concerning the Trinity, it is no authority at all , because it was neither seen nor written by Christ himself , nor in the language he spoke, nor did it exist in its present form and contents for – at least – the first two centuries after him. It might with advantage be added that in the East the Unitarian Christians always combated and protested against the Trinitarians, and that when they beheld the utter destruction of the “Fourth Beast” by the Great Prophet of Allah, they accepted and followed him. The Devil , who spoke through the mouth of the serpent to Eve, uttered blasphemies against the Most High through the mouth of the “Little Horn” which sprang up among the “Ten Horns” upon the head of the “Fourth Beast” (Dan. vi i i .), was none other than Constantine the Great, who officially and violently proclaimed the Nicene Creed. But, Prophet Muhammad has destroyed the “Iblis” or the Devil from the Promised Land for ever, by establishing Islam there as the religion of the One true God.



Some two centuries after the idolatrous and impenitent Kingdom of Israel was overthrown, and the whole population of the ten tribes deported into Assyria, Jerusalem and the glorious temple of Solomon were razed to the ground by the Chaldeans, and the un massacred remnant of Judah and Benjamin was transported into Babylonia. After a period of seventy years’ captivity, the Jews were permitted to return to their country with full authority to build again their ruined city and the temple. When the foundations of the new house of God were being laid, there arose a tremendous uproar of joy and acclamation from the assembly; while the old men and women who had seen the gorgeous temple of Solomon before, burst into a bitter weeping. It was on this solemn occasion that the Almighty sent His worshiper the Prophet Haggai to console the sad assembly with this important message: -“And I will shake all nations, and the Himdah all the nations will come; and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts. Mine is the silver, mine is the gold, says the Lord of hosts, the glory of my last house shall be greater than that of the first one, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give Shalom, says the Lord of hosts” (Haggai , i i . 7-9).


I have translated the above paragraph from the only copy of the Bible at my disposal , lent to me by an Assyrian lady cousin in her own vernacular language. But let us consult the English versions of the Bible, which we find have rendered the original Hebrew words himda and shalom into “desire” and “peace” respectively.
Jewish and Christian commentators alike have given the utmost importance to the double promise contained in the above prophecy. They both understand a messianic prediction in the word Himda. Indeed, here is a wonderful prophecy confirmed by the usual biblical formula of the divine oath, “says the Lord Sabaoth,” four times repeated. If this prophecy be taken in the abstract sense of the words himda and shalom as “desire” and “peace,” then the prophecy becomes nothing more than an unintelligible aspiration. But if we understand by the term himda a concrete idea, a person and reality, and in the word shalom, not a condition, but a living and active force and a definitely established religion, then this prophecy must be admittedly true and fulfilled in the person of Ahmed and the establishment of Islam. For himda and shalom – or shlama have precisely the same significance respectively as Ahmed and Islam.

Before endeavoring to prove the fulfillment of this prophecy, it will be well to explain the etymology of the two words as briefly as possible: -(a) Himda. The clause in the original Hebrew text reads thus: “ve yavu himdath kol haggoyim,” which literally rendered into English would be “and will come the Himda of all nations.” The final hi in Hebrew, as in Arabic, is changed into th, or t when in the genitive case. The word is derived from an archaic Hebrew – or rather Aramaic – root hmd (consonants pronounced hemed). In Hebrew hemed is generally used in the sense of great desire, covet, appetite and lust. The ninth command of the Decalogue is: “Lo tahmod i sh rei kha” (“Thou shalt not covet the wife of thy neighbor”). In Arabic the verb hemida, from the same consonants hmd, means “to praise,” and so on. What is more praised and illustrious than that which is most craved for, coveted, and desired? Which ever of the two meanings be adopted, the fact that Ahmed is the Arabic form of Himda remains indisputable and decisive. The Holy Quran (ch.61:6 ) declares that Jesus announced unto the people of Israel the coming of Ahmad: “And when Jesus, the son of Mary said: ’ Children of Israel , I am sent to you by Allah to confirm the Torah that is before me, and to give news of a Messenger who will come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.’ Yet when he came to them with clear proof s, they said: ’ This is clear sorcery.’ “

The Gospel of St. John, being written in Greek, uses the name Paracletos, a barbarous form unknown to classical Greek literature. But Periclytos, which corresponds exactly with Ahmed in its signification of “illustrious,” “glorious” and “praised,” in its superlative degree, must have been the translation into Greek of Himda or probably Hemida of the Aramaic form, as uttered by Jesus Christ. Alas! there is no Gospel extant in the original language spoken by Jesus! (b) As to the etymology and signification of the words shalom, shlama, and the Arabic salam, Isl am, I need not detain the reader by dragging him into linguistic details. Any Semitic scholar knows that Shalom and Islam are derived from one and the same root and that both mean peace, submission, and resignation. This being made clear, I propose to give a short exposition of this prophecy of Haggai . In order to understand it better, let me quote another prophecy from the last book of the Old Testament called Mallachai , or Mallakhi, or in the Authorized Version, Malachi (chap. i i i . I):
“Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: suddenly he will come to his temple. He is the Adonai (i .e. the Lord) whom you desire, and the Messenger of the Covenant with whom you are pleased. Lo he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.”

Then compare these mysterious oracles with the wisdom embodied in the sacred verse of the Quran: “Exalted is He who caused His worshiper (Prophet Muhammad) to travel in the night from the sacred Mosque (Mecca) to the farthest Mosque (Jerusalem) which We have blessed around it that We might show him of Our signs. He is the Hearer, the Seer.” Ch.17:1 Quran

That by the person coming suddenly to the temple, as foretold in the two biblical documents above mentioned, Prophet Muhammad, and not Prophet Jesus, is intended the following arguments must surely suffice to convince every impartial observer:-

1. The kinship, the relation and resemblance between the two tetrograms Himda and Ahmd, and the identity of the root hmd from which both substantives are derived, leave not a single particle of doubt that the subject in the sentence “and the Himda of all nations will come” is Ahmed; that is to say ,Muhammad. There is not the remotest etymological connection between himda and any other names of “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Savior,” not even a single consonant in common between them.

2. Even if it be argued that the Hebrew form Hmdh (read hi mdah) is an abstract substantive meaning “desire, lust, covetousness, and praise,” the argument would be again in favor of our thesis; for then the Hebrew form would, in etymology, be exactly equivalent in meaning and in similarity to, or rather identity with, the Arabic form Himdah. In whatever sense you wish to take the tetrogram Hmdh, its relation to Ahmed and Ahmedism is decisive, and has nothing to do with Jesus and Jesuism! If St. Jerome, and before him the authors of the Septuagi nt, had preserved intact the Hebrew form Hmdh, instead of putting down the Latin “cupiditas” or the Seek “euthymia,” probably the translators appointed by King James I would have also reproduced the original form in the Authorized Version, and the Bible Society have followed suit in their translations into Islamic languages.

3. The temple of Zorobabel was to be more glorious than that of Solomon because, as Mallakhi prophesied, the great Prophet or Messenger of the Covenant, the “Adonai ” or the Seyid of the messengers was to visit it suddenly, as indeed Prophet Muhammad did during his miraculous night journey, as stated in the Quran! The temple of Zorobabel was repaired or rebuilt by Herod the Great. And Jesus, certainly on every occasion of his frequent visits to that temple, honored it by his holy person and presence. Indeed, the presence of every prophet in the House of God had added to the dignity and sanctity of the sanctuary. But this much must at least be admitted, that the Gospels which record the visitations of Christ to the temple and his teachings therein fail to make mention of a single conversion among his audience. All his visits to the temple are reported as ending in bitter disputes with the unbelieving priests and Pharisees! It must also be concluded that Jesus not only did not bring “peace’ to the world as he deliberately declared (Matt. xxi v. Mark xi i i ., Luke xxi .), but he even predicted the total destruction of the temple (Matt. x. 34, etc.), which was fulfilled some forty years afterwards by the Romans, when the final dispersi on of the Jews was completed.

4. Ahmad, which is another form of the name Muhammad and of the same root and signification, namely, the “praised,” during his night journey visited the sacred spot of the ruined temple, as stated in the Holy Quran, and there and then, according to the sacred tradition uttered repeatedly by himself to his companions, officiated the di vine service of prayer and adoration to Allah in the presence of all the Prophets; and it was then that Allah “to travel in the night from the sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque which We have blessed around it that We might show him of Our Signs.” (Ch 17:1 Quran) to the Last Prophet. If Moses and Elias could appear in bodily presence on the mount of transfiguration, they and all the thousands of Prophets could also appear in the arena of the temple at Jerusalem; and it was during that “sudden coming” of Prophet Muhammad to “his temple” (Mal . i i i . 1 ) that God did actually fill it “with glory” (Hag. i i .).
That Amina, the widow of Abdullah, both of whom died before the advent of Islam, should name her orphan son “Ahmed,” the first proper noun in the history of mankind, is, according to my humble belief , the greatest miracle in favor of Islam. The second Caliph, Hazrat Omar, rebuilt the temple, and the majestic Mosque at Jerusalem remains, and will remain to the end of the world, a perpetual monument of the truth of the covenant which Allah made with Abraham and Ishmael (Gen. xv.-xvi i ).

Part 1 End


18 thoughts on “Christian-Jews-Muslims and Concept of God”

  1. Subhan Allah bohat dino baad niyaz hasil ho rahe hayn. Bhaiyon ka kuch khayal he nahi apko zarbehaq! Allah apko khush rakhen inbox check kar lain kuch bheja hai us par apki raay chahiye.

  2. Shalom,

    In many Catholic and Protestant Bibles the title Allah is used because it means just ‘god’. Many Muslims have the wrong idea about Christians and consider them all believing in a Tri-une God where the Bible, the Holy Scriptures is clear that there is Only One God, the Elohim Hashem יהוה {Jehovah}.
    Do not forget that there are many Christians who as followers of their master teacher, the Nazarene prophet יהושע {Jeshua}, better known under the blasphemous name Jesus (Hail Zeus), consider this Jewish man of flesh and blood as the son of God and not as god the son, something totally different.

    We do hope you shall be able to get some more bible translations and would be able find the Truth, and would see where many Christians and many Muslims go in the wrong.

    Wishing you all the best with your quest, we do hope Allah may guide you and give you the necessary insight.

    God bless.

    1. Wa’laykum

      Welcome: Actually this article was a response to someone, and quite frankly i am not able to know what you are trying to say. Do you believe Trinity or not? If yes then this article is for you read it again carefully and if you dont believe in Trinity then kindly explain more and enlighten us so that our next article could elaborate more light on the issue among two great religions.

      I would like you to kindly read these few lines that was rebuttal to one of Christian speakers
      Christians often appeal to Psalm 110:1 to prove that the Hebrew Bible teaches that Yahweh is multi-Personal, that there is more than one Person who is Yahweh God, and that the Messiah is God. The text in question reads:

      “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” NIV

      According to the Lord Jesus and the other NT writers this is a Psalm of David which he uttered in relation to Christ’s ascension into heavenly glory:

      “And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?’ And the great throng heard him gladly.” Mark 12:35-36

      “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:33-36

      On the basis of the above texts, Christians believe that Jesus is David’s Lord since he is the Christ. And since Yahweh is David’s Lord, Jesus must therefore be Yahweh God.

      Our Response :

      Absolute lies, absurdity and blasphemy! As I clearly proved from Hebrew in my article Do chapter Psalm 110 and Matthew 22:41-46 (“The LORD said to my Lord”) prove that Jesus is the Creator of the Universe?, the text clearly means:

      “GOD (Yahweh) said to my master (Adoni)”

      Not “GOD said to my God” or “The LORD said to my Lord”. The literal translation for “Adoni” is MASTER! Kings in the Bible were addressed as such. Yes, Yahweh too was given this title, but like “El”, and “Elohim”, which also were given to every single believer in the Bible (which refutes the trinitarian lie about Isaiah 9:6 proving Jesus to be GOD for being called “El”), this title, “Adoni” is not unique to GOD Almighty! The only unique title to GOD Almighty in the Bible is the compound name of Yahweh, which literally means “I am He”.

      Even though the last quote above, “The LORD said to my Lord”, would be correct as far as the English vocabularies are concerned, but because of the twisting of meanings and the evil word games that are done by the polytheist trinitarian pagans, this quote would then be further used by them to promote Jesus, the Messiah, to be GOD Almighty Himself, which is nothing but lies and blasphemy, despite the crystal clear following quotes that totally refute them

      As I mentioned in my other article about the Holy Spirit in Islam is a Creation of GOD Almighty, Jesus is not only “not good”, but he also has the “Spirit of Fearing GOD Almighty” in him:

      Isaiah 11:1-3
      1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
      2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)– the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)–
      3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;

      As we see in Isaiah 11:1-3, there is:

      1- Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding.

      2- Spirit of Counsel and of power.

      3- Spirit of Knowledge.

      4- Spirit of the fear of the LORD.

      Also, the verses above say “and he will delight in the fear of the LORD”, which clearly proves that Jesus is under GOD Almighty and can not be equivalent to Him or part of Him, because GOD Almighty has no fear in Him. He Created fear, or the Spirit of Fear, and He installs it on whom ever He pleases. But He Himself doesn’t have that Spirit in Him!

      The verses above also say “He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;…”, which further proves that Jesus is not part of GOD Almighty, because GOD Almighty Speaks and Hears whatever He Pleases!

      The Bible’s New Testament also records Jesus saying: “”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.” (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)”

      “”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 18:19)”

      If Jesus doesn’t consider himself as “good”, then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

      I have yet to see a good answer to this one by any polytheist trinitarian.

      Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 is the word “alone”: “”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.” (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)”

      “”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 18:19)”

      Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said “alone”. If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.

      “Show me in the Bible where Jesus said he was not GOD!”

      I sometimes get asked by trinitarians to show them where Jesus said that he WAS NOT GOD Almighty in the Bible. Ironically, it is like having this scenario:

      Q. Show me where John Doe said that he was not the President of the United States! Show me the quote now!!

      A. He just said he works as a computer programmer you brainless idiot! 🙂

      Jesus said he was not good. He can’t possibly say I am your Creator and by the way I am not good. The question itself shows the complete ignorance about what’s written in the bible and reveals the total blasphemy and darkness that polytheist trinitarian pagans are living in.

      Jesus is not GOD! The GOD Almighty of the Old Testament BOASTS about Himself! He countlessly reminds the Jews about Worshiping Him and only Him because He is the “One who took them out of Egypt”, and He’s the “One who Saved them from Pharaoh”, etc… Not only that, but He also Punishes to death anyone who profanes His Holy and Blessed Name.

      Jesus can not be this Holy and Mighty and Arrogant and Absolute GOD Almighty when he, for instance, escaped to Egypt for his life from King Herod! The GOD Almighty’s Divine Characteristics in the Old Testament can not in anyway fit Jesus who is not “good” and who runs for his life from a creation of GOD Almighty.

      Thankyou for your precious time and interest

      1. It is strange that you keep thinking that we as Christians do believe in the Trinity. You should be aware that there are many different denominations in Christianity of which there are several who do not believe in the Trinity.

      2. No sir Really not at all! why do you think like that?

        I ensure you that i mean no bad feelings. I think you didnt read my previous comments which i posted from facebook. may be they are deleted.

        I clrealy said that This article is not for to hurt anyone’s faith but rather it includes 3 famous religions of monotheism and their own meaning of the respective words.

        As far as what i pasted here was about those Christians who believe in Trinity. And as you clearly said as if i am not wrong as i am thinking you do not believe in that. So then there is no point of crossing each other here . Isnt ?

      3. As a Christian we can say that the Bible does not teach anything about a multi personal God except that He or she if you want is a Spirit, so The God has no sexual image of a man nor of a woman.
        According to the Scriptures there is only One God, and if you want we can send you the many quotes from the Bible to proof this, what Christians also should believe, though we are aware that there are many Christians who also make Jesus as their god. But that is unbiblical and may not be taken by the Muslim community that all Christians would believe that.

      4. Well! i Accept what you said is totally right, there are many sects in Christians, which are totally wrong. and i would again say that all those things which are wrong are must to be exposed by us ie, we and non trinitarian believers, the true monotheists.

        Jews are also not left behind on this issue, but you cannot deny this fact that people like you are not in majority than them who believe that Jesus is ‘god’.

        And that is what we know from our Holy Scripture Quran which talks about both sides of your groups and the banu isra’el.

  3. Jews , Christians and Muslims should like the whole world should come to believe that there is only One God (Allah) and that they should love Him and honour Him with His Name Jehovah.

    “انا الرب هذا اسمي ومجدي لا اعطيه لآخر ولا تسبيحي للمنحوتات.” (اشعياء 42:8 Arabic)

    “(84:1) لامام المغنين على الجتية.لبني قورح.مزمور‎ .‎ما احلى مساكنك يا رب الجنود‎ .” (مزامير 83:18 Arabic)

    “لا تنطق باسم الرب الهك باطلا لان الرب لا يبرئ من نطق باسمه باطلا.” (خروج 20:7 Arabic)

    “2 ثم كلم الله موسى وقال له انا الرب. 3 وانا ظهرت لابراهيم واسحق ويعقوب باني الاله القادر على كل شيء.واما باسمي يهوه فلم أعرف عندهم.” (خروج 6:2-3 Arabic)

    “انت مستحق ايها الرب ان تأخذ المجد والكرامة والقدرة لانك انت خلقت كل الاشياء وهي بارادتك كائنة وخلقت” (رؤيا 4:11 Arabic)

    “لان كل بيت يبنيه انسان ما ولكن باني الكل هو الله.” (عبرانيين 3:4 Arabic)

    “اسمع يا اسرائيل.الرب الهنا رب واحد.” (تثنية 6:4 Arabic)

    “الله روح.والذين يسجدون له فبالروح والحق ينبغي ان يسجدوا.” (يوحنا 4:24 Arabic)

  4. For those who do not know Arabic:

    “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.” (Isaiah 42:8 ASV)

    “That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:18 ASV)

    “Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7 ASV)

    “2 And Allah/God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: 3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.” (Exodus 6:2-3 ASV)

    “Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God/Allah, to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created.” (Revelation 4:11 ASV)

    “For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God/Allah.” (Hebrews 3:4 ASV)

    “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God/Allah is one Jehovah:” (Deuteronomy 6:4 ASV)

    “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 ASV)

    1. The following questions and answers are from

      Question: Doesn’t the command by Matthew’s Jesus to, “Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) show the existence of a triune deity.

      Answer: Matthew 28:19 states: “Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Although the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together, this verse does not prove the existence of a triune deity. The verse merely indicates the author’s belief that they are to be mentioned together during baptism. Each is thought to have a function in the initiation of the believer during the baptism ritual. Yet no doctrine of coequality among them is promulgated in this verse.
      In the early period baptism was simply in “Christ” (Galatians 3:27) or in the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:13, Acts 8:16, 19:5). The text in Matthew represents a later stage of development, but is still not trinitarian in meaning. The doctrine of the trinity is a still later development.

      Question: The word ‘echad, “one,” is used in the Jewish Scriptures in either a compound or absolute sense. In what sense is ‘echad used in the Shema, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4)?

      Answer: In such verses as Genesis 1:5: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day,” and Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh,” the term ‘echad, “one,” refers to a compound united one. However, ‘echad often also means an absolute one. This is illustrated by such verses as 2 Samuel 13:30: “Absolom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left”; 2 Samuel 17:12: “And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one”; Exodus 9:7: “There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one”; 2 Samuel 17:22: “There lacked not one of them that was not gone over the Jordan”; Ecclesiastes 4:8: There is one [that is alone], and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son nor brother.” Clearly, the word “one” used in these verses means an absolute one and is synonymous with the word yachid, “the only one,” “alone.” It is in this sense, with even greater refinement, that ‘echad is used in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” Here, ‘echad is used as a single, absolute, unqualified one. There is no mention of a triune god.

      Question: Do Deuteronomy 6:4 and Psalms 110:1 teach the Trinitarian plurality of God?

      Answer: By rendering Psalms 110:1 as, “. . . the Lord said to my Lord . . .” Christians argue that Jesus is greater than David and is not only the Messiah but is part of a Trinitarian godhead as well (see Matthew 22:42-45, Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44, Acts 2:34-36, Hebrews 1:13). Yet, a careful examination finds their hypothesis to be totally without merit.

      Since le-David, in verse 1, does not always mean “written by David,” but sometimes “concerning David” or “in the style of David,” it cannot be said with certainty that the preposition le, often translated “of,” actually indicates “composed by David.” Further investigation is necessary in order to understand its meaning as governed by the context of this psalm.

      Let us examine Psalm 72. It was written by David “for,” or “concerning,” Solomon (cf. verses 1 and 20), yet the Hebrew contains an introductory phrase similar to the one found in Psalm 110. The introductory statement, li- S’hlomo, stresses that the psalm is “concerning” Solomon rather than that it is by Solomon. Even more significant is 2 Samuel 22:51 and Psalms 144:10, where David speaks of himself in the third person. Accordingly, there is every indication that the proper translation of Psalms 110:1 is: “A Psalm concerning David. HaShem says to my master [‘adoni]: ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'” David is writing this psalm from the perspective of the individual who is going to recite it. From this perspective, David, as king, is appropriately referred to as “my master.” The claim that David is actually (or also) referring to Jesus by the phrase “my master” is not supported by the text.

      The privilege of sitting at the right hand is a mark of distinction (1 Kings 2:19). When God invites David to “sit at My right hand,” it is to show the privileged position enjoyed by David in his relationship with God. It is not to be taken as literally indicating sitting at God’s right hand. The terminology “right hand” is here used as an expression of God’s favoritism toward David.

      From a Christian perspective: Does the name of God (HaShem), translated as “the Lord” in many English versions of Psalms 110:1, refer to “God the Father” or to “God the Son” or does it refer to all three members of the Trinity? Christians are divided on the answer.

      Concerning the word ‘Elohaynu (“our God”), which appears in the Shema, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord [HaShem] our God, the Lord [HaShem] is One [‘Echad]” (Deuteronomy 6:4), most Christians maintain that it is plural and should be understood in its literal sense as “our Gods,” but in the sense of a “triunity.” For this reason, they often interpret the verse as: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods, the Lord is a compound unity.”

      From this Christian explanation of the Shema, it follows that “the Lord” (HaShem) could not refer to either “God the Father” or “God the Son” alone, but must refer to all three members of the “triunity” as a whole. This being the case, how is it possible for Christians to maintain that the phrase “to my Lord” (as commonly translated in Christian Bibles) refers to Jesus? If “my Lord” refers to the second member of the supposed “triunity,” Jesus, then who is the first “Lord” mentioned in the verse? If “the Lord” (HaShem) in the Shema is a “triunity” united in the divine name, that is, “the Lord is our Gods,” the first “Lord” in Psalms 110:1 must also refer to the united “triunity.” If this is so, then the phrase “to my Lord” automatically excludes Jesus, who allegedly is already included in the first part of the verse, “the Lord.”

      Furthermore, if the second “Lord,” supposedly Jesus, is sitting next to the first “Lord,” the triune godhead or two-thirds of it, or any aggregate of it, he cannot be part of it. That which exists outside of God cannot be God.

      Question: Doesn’t Psalms 110:1 show that the Messiah will not only be greater than David but must also be a divine being?

      Answer: Psalms 110:1 states: “A Psalm concerning David. HaShem says to my master: ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'” There is no problem with accepting that one’s descendants can rise to a more exalted position than we possess at present. There is no problem with David accepting that the Messiah will be greater than he is. But, there is nothing in this verse to show that David is referring to the Messiah when he writes ‘adoni, “my master,” “my lord.” Moreover, there is nothing in David’s words to indicate that the individual he refers to as “my master” is a divine being. David “concerning” himself wrote Psalm 110 poetically in the third person. Christians explain this verse based on New Testament exegesis. The Marcan Jesus says:
      How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said by the Holy Spirit; “The Lord [kyrios] said to my Lord [kyrio mou], ‘Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies beneath your feet.’ David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he then his son? (Mark 12:35-37).

      Mark’s rendering uses the Greek word kyrios, “lord,” twice in the sentence, and the Christian translations into English capitalize the initial letter of the word to read “Lord” in both instances. Jesus’ discourse is only possible if he and those he spoke to were conversing in Greek. The exegetical problems that Mark’s Jesus refers to are only apparent in the Greek rendering and renderings from the Greek into other languages. In the Greek text, the initial kyrios is a reference to “the Lord,” that is, God, and translates the Tetragrammaton (Y- H-V-H, the four letter name of God often referred to in Hebrew as HASHEM–THE NAME). The second kyrios, renders ‘adoni, “my master,” “my lord” (which according to Mark’s understanding refers to “the Christ”). That is, the Greek, kyrios, is used to render two separate and distinct Hebrew words in the Greek translation. The confusion it creates in Greek does not exist in the Hebrew original. As a result, the Marcan Jesus’ exegesis is non-existent in the Hebrew and incorrect in its understanding of the Greek rendering.

      Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen].” Doesn’t this show that they are one in essence?

      This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John’s Jesus meant by the word hen (“one”) becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: “That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]” (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: “I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]” (John 8:29).
      There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

      Question : In the Book of Revelation we find the verse, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). But what do you do with Revelation 22:13, which appears to be Jesus speaking (see verse 16), when he says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”? Doesn’t the command by Matthew’s Jesus to, “Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) show the existence of a triune deity.

      Answer: Despite the distinctiveness with which God and Jesus are regarded in the New Testament some Christians are under the misconception that God and Jesus form two-thirds of a triune deity. Partial responsibility for this error is due to the New Testament writers, who use a number of designations for Jesus, which are the same as those given to God in the Jewish Bible and in the New Testament. The resulting confusion as to whether certain New Testament passages refer to God or to Jesus helped to produce the belief in a triune god.
      That Jesus, who is considered by the New Testament writers to be the link between God and creation, is called by some of the same designations that are applied to God is understandable. After all, the New Testament writers believed that God had conferred a tremendous amount of power upon this angelic being, so why not, as well, some of His names, which express certain facets of His being? But it is nevertheless clear that although the God of the New Testament interacts with the world He created solely through His “firstborn” (Colossians 1:15-17), the latter is still subservient to God. Because of the exalted yet subservient position in which they envision Jesus, the New Testament writers do not believe it compromises God’s status to apply some of His names to Jesus (cf. Ephesians 1:21, Philippians 2:9, Hebrews 1:4). The use of common names is not intended to indicate that Jesus is of one substance with God.

      Perhaps, if “the Alpha and the Omega” in Revelations 22:13 is actually a reference to Jesus it stems from the New Testament belief that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the first thing created by God. What is significant is not so much the use of this name as the fact that whenever the relationship between God and Jesus is treated, the New Testament writers always describe God as superior to Jesus.

      In any case, in verse 12 the subject of verse 13 (“the Alpha and the Omega”) says he is “coming quickly.” Since Jesus has not come “quickly” this is either false prophecy or the text is not speaking about Jesus.

      Question : God said: “Let us make man in our image . . .” (Genesis 1:26) and “Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7). To whom does the “us” refer?

      Answer: Trinitarian Christians maintain that Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 are prooftexts of an alleged tri-unity god, but this claim is erroneous. The inference that “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, “And God created man in His image” (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb “created” appears in the singular form. If “let us make man” indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, “And they created man in their image.” Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation ‘Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God’s attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel what we shall do” (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself’ yet he refers to himself as “we” (see also Ezra 4:16-19).

      1. The resulting confusing in the New testaments do not come from the original writers but from the many translators of denomination groups who tried to omit confusion with their dogmatic teachings.

        God is a God of clarity and order, not a God of confusion. His Word is very clear, but many theologians and their churches created many dogma’s, things people had to believe, even when they could not find it in the Bible. It is that dogmatic teaching that brought so many denominations in Christendom, while in Christianity there were still many who had to take care to stay alive and had to do all the work to stand strong in the world of false teachings.

        It would better for the Muslim world that they came to see that there are those Christians who kept to the only One God and that they show other Christians and non-believers what is really written in Gods Word, instead of fighting against each other.

      2. We do hope you do not mind that we call your reply to Genesis very weak. It is so simple, God is the most High. He is the King of the King of kings, and like all high persons He speaks in the Pluralis Major, like today still every important person of a country, company would speak.

      3. Well do not try to mixed several things in one. First of all the last reply above your comment clearly mentions that this is the answer from the JEWS for you Christians not from Us Muslims.

        So give your clarifications to them not us because we are not saying that what they said is totally 100% accurate. as far as muslim response to your question about the Concept of God is already given in this article

      4. Yes we should do to that organisation and looked already at that site, downloaded their Missionary booklet, which we shall read and respond accordingly. But we thought the answer could suit your readers as well.

      5. Shalom, at no time a Jew or a real Jew for Christ shall come to worship a Trinity. The Trinity is a false teaching which is abominable in the eyes of God.

        Jesus (Isha) was a Nazarene Jew from the tribe of David. He was brought up by very devote Jews, namely Essenes, both his foster parent and his mother keeping to Torah. Jeshua also knew very well the Scriptures and kept to them. He never considered him equal to or even to be God. All the time he made it clear that he was working in the name of God, being His sent one and his servant. The Scriptures also write about him as the sent prophet from God. It is that what a real Jew for Christ should believe and believes.

        It is true that by the Messianic Jews we can find a few Jews but more, or a lot of, Goyim or non-Jews, who want to adhere more to the Jewish feasts and traditions than to the old writings.

        Just because we can find such a lot of evangelical preachers trying to convert Jews to their Trinitarian faith, many Jews hate the “Jews for Christ” movements and consider several Messianic Groups from haSatan, the evil in this world trying to bring Mine Bechir or HaBechirim (the Chosen People of God) away from God.

        Concerning God speaking in the plural form you may not forget the Elohim Hashem Jehovah is the Most Highest Being and as such like all other high beings uses the Pluralis Majestatis or Royal We. It is not because He would be existing out of two, three, or more beings, but like Scripture makes it clear He is Only One.

        Because of there being so many false Christians (the ones believing in a Duality god or believing in a three headed god, the Trinity), or name Christians (who often do not believe in God, but just live according to traditions) many Jews take aversion to the ‘Christian faith’ and ‘Christian believers’. This happens because often they do not know the real Christians enough, but also because they do not want to accept Jeshua as haMoshiach or the Messiah.

  5. Your text is very long, so we start reacting on the first paragraph.

    Baptising in one or more names does not mean that those person are all the same person. The same can be said when an advocate or intercessor (like Jesus is one) can talk for the other, without being that one other. So when Jesus speaks for us to his Father and our Father, the Only One God Jehovah, Jesus is not us, though he may be ‘one of us’. You may be one of the Muslims, but we are convinced you are not Mohammed from next door, or a few houses further.

    Jesus when speaking in behalf of God, also does not have to be God, like when a CEO speaks in behalf of his company or his director or his shareholders, he is not the company, nor that director , nor the shareholders (though he may have some shares as well and be as such then also a share holder).

    You may see the answer yourself, when you have written the second paragraph: “Although the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together, this verse does not prove the existence of a triune deity.”

    First of all God is Spirit and the Holy Spirit is His Being, His Thinking, His Speaking, His Handling, but it is not a separate person, it is the Power of God the Ruach Pneuma. Like our spirit, our handling and thinking is no part of a duality, except when we do have a split personality or are schizophrenic, but this is considered not to be a healthy condition and brings people in the asylum.

    For most of the things you mention many pages are needed to be clear and they are discussed in plentyfold on the many pages we do present on the net. May we advice you to have a better look at what many more Christians do believe, than the false teachings of the Trinity.

    About the image of God, the Bible says clearly we all are created in the image of God. We all, you, me, he, she have elements of God in them but that does not make me to be God nor does it make you to be Allah or would make any other being which God allows to be here on earth to be The God, though we may see many gods (like Pharao, Presley, Madonna, Maradonna, and many other idols) but they can never be The Supreme Being the Allah, God, Elohim Hashem Jehovah.

    1. You know what you need to know about the fact that What is the Concept of Abrahamic Religions and what is the True meaning of God.

      These are two different subjects that whether Its problem in translating bible or bible itself is the problem. any way i am agree with your last sentence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s