Christmas: A Unique Birth?

During the Christmas season, many celebrate the birth of Christ, the incarnation of God as something unique and unprecedented. It’s an incarnation of God that brought about the new covenant, allowing Christ to die for our sins and grant us eternal life. Or so that is what is said. There is however, nothing unique about God becoming incarnate from a Christian perspective, theophanies or the appearance of God in various forms throughout the Old Testament is a common and well-known theme, therefore it begs the question as to why any Christian should consider the incarnation to be a unique, once in a lifetime event.


As already established in an earlier article, the date of Christmas itself is not Biblically based1. Those who hold to the December 25th date are merely doing so out of tradition and culture, as opposed to Christian beliefs or rites. While some may believe that there is some religious, Biblical basis for the celebration of the birth of whom they consider to be God, at no point in the New Testament (or early Christian documents) do any of the authors ever indicate that the disciples, apostles, presbyters, or patristics ever commemorated the birth of Christ himself.

Perhaps though what is more confusing is that according to Christian beliefs the incarnation was not unique. It was not unique in the sense that Christ had come to earth in an incarnate form previously, and it was also not unique for in the same incarnate form he also bore no sin. One Christian author argues:

Divine manifestations and revelatory experiences of the latter sort are commonly called theophanies (i.e., appearances of God). One of the most important forms that theophanies take in the OT is that of the Malak Yahweh, commonly translated as “the Angel of the LORD” or “the Angel of Yahweh”. According to the Old Testament Scriptures, this figure is an appearance of Yahweh in human form.2

The author identifies this Angel of Yahweh as being Jesus in no uncertain terms:

The earliest Christians, as well as many other Christian worthies throughout the centuries, have also viewed the Malak Yahweh as a distinct divine person within the Godhead, further explicating it as a Christophany, that is, an appearance of the pre-incarnate Logos or Word of God – the Lord Jesus Christ.3

In the Book of Genesis, it records the myth of Abraham’s meeting with three men who were the God (the Lord) in human form:

The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent during the hottest time of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him. When he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by and leave your servant. – Genesis 18:1-3.4

In conclusion, as it pertains to Christmas, the celebration of a unique incarnation of God is unremarkable. According to Christian beliefs, Christ was already incarnate in an earlier time and so the advent of the birth of Christ is not and should not be considered unique or something worthy of celebration unless one were Muslim. In the Islamic case, we do have reason to believe that Jesus’s birth was unique, that his birth manifested itself through the will of God, a birth without a father. While we do not celebrate Christmas under false pretenses, we do however have more of a reason to consider his birth unique and miraculous than our Christian brothers and sisters.


and Allah knows best.


  1. Three Reasons Why Christians Should Not Celebrate Christmas.
  2. The Malak Yahweh: Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament.
  3. Ibid.
  4. NET Genesis 18:1-3.

Categories: Christianity, Daw'ah

Tags: , , , , ,

31 replies

  1. Chapter 20. Heathen analogies to Christian doctrine

    And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, ON SOME POINTS WE TEACH THE SAME THINGS AS THE POETS AND PHILOSOPHERS WHOM YOU HONOUR, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, WE SHALL SEEM TO UTTER THE DOCTRINE OF PLATO; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, WE SHALL SEEM TO UTTER THE DOCTRINE OF STOICS: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, WE SHALL SEEM TO SAY THE SAME THINGS AS TH POETS AND PHILOSOPHERS; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, WE SAY THE VERY THINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN SAID BY THE COMIC POET MENANDER, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

    Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ

    And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, WICKED DEVILS PERPETRATED THESE THINGS. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

    Chapter 23. The argument

    And that this may now become evident to you— (firstly ) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, NOT BECAUSE WE SAY THE SAME THINGS AS THESE WRITERS SAID, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, INFLUENCED BY THE DEMONS BEFORE MENTIONED, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, HAVING FICTITIOUSLY DEVISED, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof— we shall bring forward the following proof.

    Chapter 24. Varieties of heathen worship

    In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners; other men in other places worshipping trees and rivers, and mice and cats and crocodiles, and many irrational animals. Nor are the same animals esteemed by all; but in one place one is worshipped, and another in another, so that all are profane in the judgment of one another, on account of their not worshipping the same objects. And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims.

    Chapter 25. False Gods abandoned by Christians

    And, secondly, because we— who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Æsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods— have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.

    Justin’s point is so self-evidently obvious that it really needs to further comment. With that said, it is obvious that Justin’s point is that since the pagans believed similar-though not identical-things they therefore have no justification for their hatred and persecution of Christians. Now what were some of the things that the pagans taught which were similar to the Christians?

    God made and fashioned all things.

    The resurrection of the dead.

    Eternal bliss for some and fiery torment for others.

    God having sons etc.

    And yet Just Martyr’s comments make it equally clear that similarities do not prove common origin or borrowing, since he clearly states that the pagans teach that which was inspired by demons.

    Therefore, Justin wasn’t arguing that the Christian beliefs concerning the Incarnation weren’t unique, but that the pagans had no valid grounds to condemn and/or kill believers for holding such beliefs when they also held to similar things, even though these beliefs were worlds apart since their differences were much greater than their similarities.

    What makes this rather ironic is that the pagans accused Muhammad of the very same thing, namely, that he taught nothing more than the fables which the people before him used to teach. What makes this even more interesting is that in one particular context this was said in reference to Muhammad’s proclamation of the resurrection of the dead:

    They say: When we are dead and have become (mere) dust and bones, shall we then, forsooth, be raised again? We were already promised this, we and our forefathers. Lo! this is naught but fables of the men of old. S. 23:82-83 Pickthall

    Yet those who disbelieve say: When we have become dust like our fathers, shall we verily be brought forth (again)? We were promised this, forsooth, we and our fathers. (All) this is naught but fables of the men of old. S. 27:67-68 Pickthall

    With that said, MERRY CHRISTMAS!


    • Sam, you really need to hold up on the pages worth of comments. Keep them laconic so people would be willing to engage with what you have to say. A simple link to the work would have sufficed.

      In any case the problem remains, having read what you wrote, that demons, wicked devils and (evil) humans have said the same things about God that Christians were now saying as well. This speaks to the nature of God, the ontology of God and its demonic and evil origin.

      On the other hand, your comments about the Qur’an are not only out of place, they seem fanciful if not erratic. The Qur’an affirms that it did not only come to reveal new information about the people of the past, but that it also came to confirm certain things, things that were not from demons or devils, but mentioned by the people of the past. There’s a distinct difference, surely you can see the contradistinction?

      Surely this is different than affirming the triumvirate/ trinity, the sons of Jupiter/ son of God, the copying of the cheriai and the other syncretic features found in the Christian tradition contemporary to that time period.

      Hope you are able to recognize the differences, if not, there is no need for lengthy comments or tu quoque, we need to go beyond such quarrels, we need arguments.

      Br. Ijaz.


  2. “…theophanies or the appearance of God in various forms throughout the Old Testament is a common and well-known theme…”

    Amen, Amen, Amen, whats next you’re going to be telling us the Incarnation was prophesied in the Old Testament? lol.

    BTW who is “The author identifies this Angel of Yahweh as being Jesus in no uncertain terms”? Kind of rude not to name him or provide a link or reference where we can read his entire masterpiece on the subject.

    Besides he sounds a lot smarter than you.


    • Better yet, let me show your god became stuck in a tree:

      When he saw a fire, and said to his family, ‘Tarry you here; I observe a fire. Perhaps I shall bring you a brand from it, or I shall find at the fire guidance.’ When he came TO IT, A VOICE CRIED, ‘Moses, I am thy Lord; put off thy shoes; thou art in the holy valley, Towa. I Myself have chosen thee; therefore give thou ear to this revelation. S. 20:10-13 Arberry

      When Moses said to his people ‘I observe a fire, and will bring you news of it, or I will bring you a flaming brand, that haply you shall warm yourselves.’ So, when he came to IT, he was called: ‘Blessed is HE WHO IS IN THE FIRE, and he who is about it. Glory be to God, the Lord of all Being! Moses, behold, it is I, God, the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 27:7-9 Arberry

      Then, when Musa (Moses) had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family, he saw a fire in the direction of Tur (Mount). He said to his family: “Wait, I have seen a fire; perhaps I may bring to you from there some information, or a burning fire-brand that you may warm yourselves.” So when he reached IT (the fire), he was called from the right side of the valley, in the blessed place FROM THE TREE: “O Musa (Moses)! Verily! I AM ALLAH, the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)!” S. 28:29-30 Hilali-Khan

      So you worship a tree god! ROFL!

      Better still is how the spirit of your god could appear as a perfect looking man in order to cause Mary to conceive miraculously, making him better and greater than your god whom you say would never appear in human form.

      And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit (Roohana) and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. S. 19:16-19 Pickthall



    • BTW, that reply was intended for KSMOOCHER not you.


    • Sam,

      A simple question, where do any of those passages indicate that God was stuck in a tree, and what exegetical method from ‘Uloom al Qur’an did you use to arrive at such an eisegetical conclusion?



  3. OT theophanies (appearances of God) are not the same as an incarnation (actually taking on a human nature and body and going through the human process of conception, gestation, birth, growth from infancy to childhood to adulthood, etc.)

    Very different and very unique.

    You just assume that OT theophanies are previous incarnations, but they are not, since a theophany is by definition not an incarnation. A theophany is God appearing in different forms, perceptible to humans, sometimes even wrestling with the human (Genesis 32:24-30), but not actually entering into that form. God uses forms like angels, dreams, the fire in the burning bush, and pillar and cloud, etc. and speaks to humans through the forms and speaks through angels, without actually becoming an angel.

    Hebrews 2:14-18 and Hebrews chapter 1 demonstrate that God did not become an angel, but the eternal Son of God did actually become flesh and blood (human), and also retained His eternal nature as God.


  4. Shalom/Salam Peace be unto you Sir Ijaz. My Question is the following: If it is a historical reality (which I believe it is) that Christmas has a Pagan Roman Origin and nothing to do with the Historical Rabbi Jesus/Eessa, is it not then possible, that similarly, the Trinity has also nothing to do with Jesus, but is actually of Pagan Origin? Can the Trinirarians actually not see that, just as Christmass is Pagan and not the Birthday of Jesus yet they celebrate it similarly the Trinity is also of later tradition which they believe and nothing to do with Jesus and the Bible. As a consequence the Bible has no explicit mention of the Trinity and neither did Jesus. Please clarify Ijaz. Maybe you can write some article on this.


    • Jesus mentioned the 3 persons of the Trinity – Matthew 28:19
      Jesus’ apostles also did many times – 2 Cor. 13:14; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2
      Matthew 3:16-17 demonstrates the 3 persons of the Trinity.
      Jesus received worship – Matthew 2:1-12; 14:33; Revelation chapter 5
      Jesus is one substance with the Father – John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Colossians 1:15-20
      The Holy Spirit is God – Acts 5:3-5; John 14:26; 16:12-13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11
      God is One. Mark 12:29
      and God exists in three persons who relate to one another. John 17:1-3; John 15:26
      The Son is eternal – John 17:5; John 17:24; John 1:1
      More on the Deity of Christ – Matthew 22:41-46 (Psalm 110); John 20:28; 5:17-18; 8:56-58; 10:30; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Romans 9:5

      Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas (Three in One) is Biblical.

      As Yahya Snow wrote on another post:

      “You’ve got to allow for contextualisation of that Hadith and you’ve got to allow Muslims to explain their own texts to get a better grasp of what the faith actually teaches so it can be represented accurately..This is even touched on by the church elder,
      James R White who writes:”

      “I learned as a young person that the single best way to honor the truth and to show honor to those you seek to reach is to “hear them in their own language,” that is, to enter into their worldview and their theology.”

      “You’ve got to allow for contextualization of the Bible and you’ve got to allow Christians to explain their own texts in a consistent theology to get a better grasp of what the faith actually teaches so it can be represented accurately.”


    • “Jesus mentioned the 3 persons of the Trinity”
      This is not true at all. Jesus did mentioned them, yet he did without any context of what so called trinity.
      It’s not biblical.


  5. Ken Temple; why do Theological Super-Heavyweights regard the Trinity as non-existent in those texts and particularly absent from the lips of Jesus? Why do they say, particularly Trinitarian scholars claim ”Jesus was not a Trinitarian. The Trinity is later invention. Any text that Ken Temple brings forth for the Trinity is Eisegesis”‘. Scholars such as Dunn, larry hurtado etc.


    • James White – The Forgotten Trinity
      Dan Wallace – Greek scholar
      D. A. Carson – NT scholar
      Robert Bowman – Why You Should Believe in the Trinity
      Robert Letham – The Holy Trinity
      Timothy George – Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?
      Wayne Grudem – Systematic Theology
      Louis Berkhof – Systematic Theology
      Michael Reeves – Delighting in the Trinity
      Bruce Ware – One God in three Persons
      Fred Sanders – several books on the Trinity – one is called, “The Deep Things of God”

      These are believing, and more consistent theologically scholars than Dunn and Hurtado -they lean a little liberal, especially Dunn. I found that Dunn doubts the virgin conception and birth of Christ, yet Muslims believe that, so they should not use Dunn at all, and cannot, in a consistent worldview kind of a way.

      They are not “Theological Super-Heavyweights”.
      That list is more of a Theological Super Heavyweight list of believers who believe the Bible.


  6. Ken Temple, James Dunn is More Heavyweight than all of em combined. Additionally, NT Wright also pretty much agrees that Jesus was not a Trinitarian, and he is an extremely intelligent and academically qualified heavyweight, far more than James White. Look, you admit that the **conservatives** stick to the **established status quo** hence they are ”conservatives” conserving the traditions/traditional view regardless of the facts. But the thing is Bart Ehrman was also a hard-core evangelical ”conservative” until he realized the evidence could no longer support his non-sensical views.He admits this in ”Jesus Interrupted” that it was the contradictions in the Bible that he could not ignore and Nabeel also admitted the same when he said ”We should not commit Idolatry by regarding the Bible as Perfect”. In other words, he is admitting that the Bible is not free from contradictions. It is pretty much obvious, the Bible has contradictions.

    But how come these scholars, including the Oxford Educated Sir Anthony Buzzard (a Unitarian, but still a Scholar nonetheless), N.T Wright (Trinitarian),Larry Hurtado (Trinitarian) , James Dunn ( Trinitarian) Bart Ehrman ( Ex Trinitarian) etc etc are all saying what the Encyclopedias are saying as well: Jesus was Not A Trinitarian.? Why? Why? How many Unitarians and Muslim Scholars claim that Jesus was a Trinitarian? Answer: ZERO. How many Trinitarian Scholars believe that Jesus was a NOT A TRINITARIAN? BY THE TRUCK LOADS. Interesting. How many Atheist/Agnostic Bible Scholars believe Jesus was not a Trinitarian? BY THE TRUCK LOADS! Can you see the Pattern?

    You wrote:

    I found that Dunn doubts the virgin conception and birth of Christ, yet Muslims believe that, so they should not use Dunn at all, and cannot, in a consistent worldview kind of a way.

    So if a Doctor believes that Macro-Evolution is False. Then a Patient, who is an Evolutionist, should reject his advice, when the Doctor says ”Ciggerates contain mutagenic agents, carcinogens. They will cause cancer. Stop Smoking”. This means the Doctor is wrong? Your Logic only works in the hallways of unskilled, useless, graduates from unaccredited institutions at diploma mills where James White is the warden! People who become famous for smashing their Father with Hammer!

    Just Because when Bart Ehrman is wrong when he says Jesus was crucified, that does not mean he is wrong he says ”2+2=4”.


    • Avi,
      You are right.

      Just because a scholar disagrees with one point of doctrinal belief, it does not necessarily negate everything else the scholar has written that IS absolutely correct.

      The measure of truth is not the false and innovated Christian doctrine, especially when that is the very thing that is being examined in light of the historical and textual evidence.


  7. Ken Temple, you see, even Professor Mike Licona, admitted, after years of investigations

    ”The Bible is pretty much a self-contradictory load of crap that requires Olympic Level Gymnastics to even be remotely comprehensible. ”

    Why? He clearly stated that Mathew contains ”Tons of Non-Sense, most non-historical (aka CRAP) information”.

    The Boat is Clearly Sinking. You will Sink In Hell, believe me. YOUR OWN SCHOLARS ARE SAYING



    • If Christians were honest with themselves, they would embrace the process of textual criticism and where it is heading, by rejecting the innovations and false doctrines that have entered into their own religion. They could then reform their own doctrines to be more in line with the Bible, and historical textual critique, by ejecting Trinitarianism, Atonement by the cross, doctrine of original sin, rejection of the Law, perpetual virgin, and others etc. that are not Biblically supported. This would help place Christianity in lock step with the Unitarian Abrahamic Monotheism as professed by the sister faiths, Judaism and Islam.


  8. Poor article and full of logical fallacies. The main one being that as far as theophonies go, none of the ot ones involved a birth. Poor attempt at reasoning and a classic fallacy that only someone who believes in the superstition of islam could find compelling.

    The attempt to discredit Abraham’s meeting with a plural god is ample evidence that the quran does not come from the god of abraham and is a satanic attempt to subvert the truth.


    • Bill,
      If you want to talk about superstitions, then we should mention the paganistic and idolatrous belief that an incarnate God was born on Christmas day, when there is no biblical evidence to prove such a birth ever even occurred on Dec. 25. Only a Christian could find such logical fallacies (of which there are numerous) in the Bible itself to be compelling.

      The attempt to discredit Abraham’s meeting with a SINGULAR god is ample evidence that the NEW TESTAMENT does not come from the god of abraham and is a reinterpretive (satanic?) attempt to subvert the truth.


    • Ibn issam

      I say “superstition” because muslims are called to revere a mere human being and impart religious significance to his actions without any rational reason for doing so.

      Abraham clearly encountered a plural god – only irrational and superstitious belief in the example of a flawed human being like mohammed prohibits muslims from accepting this.

      I still maintain that whoever wrote the above article is an irrational fool who is too blinded by superstition to recognize the failure of his reasoning. Even the basic premise is pathetic – OT theophonies featured no births, so jesus incarnation is unique.

      As for celebrating Christmas, there is no limit in christianity to the times when we can worship – that’s all christmas is, worship. And the NT clearly calls on us to worship jesus, god incarnate. No “paganistics” here. Christians are free to worship and celebrate the true god at any time.

      Thus, christmas celebrations are more strongly biblically grounded than basic islamic practices are quranically grounded. Muslims are not commanded by your god to pray 5 times a day, nor to go to Mecca for the hajj just to name a couple. Your wudu rituals derive from pagan practices – your own sources say this – and the quran doesn’t say where the kaaba is, let alone to circle it seen times like pre-islamic arabian pagans.

      Hope that clears things up.


    • Bill,

      I didn’t respond earlier because I didn’t find your argument to be sensible. Having seen you repeat it, I’ll just quickly mention why.

      Is the human ontologically different based on whether one was born into flesh or made into it?



    • Ijaz

      Thanks for responding. Your question needs elaboration because it sounds like you are trying to argue red-herrings on top of logical failure in your article.

      Where does “made into flesh” come into the equation in relation to birth?


    • Hi Bill,

      You haven’t explained what the logical failure in my article was. What is different about human nature regardless of its introduction to the world? Does the human nature differ in some way?



    • Ijaz

      Bait and switch comes to mind. You failed to show how god’s incarnation by birth was not unique – you didn’t even seem to try to do that. Hence, bait and switch. I can list your other failures to reason logically, but I would like an elaboration of your question.

      Where does “made flesh” come into the equation of theophonies? Hint….you might understand another of your logical mistakes if you consider this question.


    • Bill,

      If you had an argument, you would have put it forward by now. How is a human ontologically different from birth than from instant incarnation? It’s not a complicated question, your inability to answer says it all.

      Thanks for your time.


    • Ijaz

      I don’t think you understand the question – not surprising.

      Where does “made flesh” come into the equation of theophonies?

      I’ll try to make it easier for you and this is as close as I will come to thinking for you about your extremely embarrassing failure to reason logically.

      Here’s the question made easy……

      Which biblical verses say that theophonies are god become human? Think about that and you might be able to – slowly – figure out another of your failures to reason logically.

      As for not presenting an argument, your argument is a logical mess, and pointing that out is the only reasonable argument that can be presented.


    • Hi Bill,

      I do understand the question, but it seems like you’ve been confounded. If God has appeared in human form before , how is that ontologically different from God incarnate?

      It’s a very simple question.

      Br. Ijaz.


    • Ijaz

      I ‘m confounded by your inability to form your thoughts into a logically sound idea. Even your question is premised on a logical convolution that affirms the consequent. Now it seems that you are requiring that I make your argument for you.

      I don’t know how much simpler I can make it for you – here’s the very, very, very simple question again….Which biblical verses say that theophonies are god become human?

      I don’t see why it is so hard or you to articulate this premise – it is the foundation of your irrational reasoning and needs to be addressed by you.


    • Bill W
      The Jews do not seem to agree with your Trinitarian interpretation of Abraham’s theophany. So I will let you argue that one with them.

      If anything is superstitious it is the paganistic belief that sin is atoned by the Human blood sacrifice of a contrived idolatrous Greco-Roman Man God, who was supposedly born on Dec. 25.
      the same date as the pagan celebration of Winter Solstice. Christmas is full of paganistic belief and superstitious practices, such as decorating trees, holly and Ivy, wreaths for the dead, gift giving, Santa Claus and his merry elves, Black pete, sun God, Yule log, hanging stockings, drinking alcoholic egg nog, etc. How is any of that “strongly grounded in the Bible?” How much are Christians really celebrating and worshipping the true God on Christmas day, vs. how much are they really engaging in ancient pagan practices and idolatry? Can Christians worship on a Pagan Holiday, sure I agree with you…but the question is Should they?

      5 daily prayers mentioned in Qur’an:

      List of verses about Hajj:

      The Qur’an mentions its location of the Holy Kaaba as being near the hills of Safa and Marah, and near Mina and Arafat all of which is obviously in Mecca.

      It is a superstitious Christianity that is paganistic to the core. I will wait for you to show me the Bible verse where the celebration of Saturnalia, Santa Claus, reindeer are commanded and sanctioned by God. Although I will settle if you can just show me one verse where God or Jesus commands or sanctions the celebration of Jesus Birthday on Dec. 25 or any other time for that matter.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Ijaz, could you educate Ken and Shanoun as to why a) the Trinity was not preached by Jesus, and the disciples b) the Trinity is an invented later Blasphmey and that c) the NT writers were not Trinitarian


  10. To all those who worship a Muslim as God, as much as that is flattering to the practitioners of Islam, it is a textbook example of idolatry and polytheism. Why did Jesus not claim to be God, in clear and explicit terms? If Jesus was claiming to be the 2nd Person of the Trinity, he must be the absolute worst communicator in the history of this planet! Instead of saying Shema, he should have recited the Nicene Creed.


  11. To Bill W, Answering Islam, and Ken Temple, Ijaz Ahmad

    The Suspicious Nature of Trinitarian Claims

    How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

    If you look just a little beneath the surface of Trinitarian claims you will be confronted with a very disturbing realization. Once a person looks more carefully into the actual facts concerning these claims, he will notice something quite troubling. Why do so many Trinitarian claims have such a suspicious quality about them? Why are Trinitarian claims so highly questionable? Why are facts inconvenient to Trinitarian doctrine passed over, slighted or trivialized? And why do Trinitarian apologists usually refrain from disclosing all of these facts? And why do so many Trinitarian claims appear to be contrivances designed to suit their doctrine?

    Indeed, Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to mention 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a counterfeit. A similar thing has occurred with the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Both these verses were once favorites of Trinitarian apologists. But since the truth is now upon them, Trinitarians are now forced to confess there is absolutely no support for them in either of these passages.

    Those two verses are only the beginning of their suspicious claims. Trinitarian apologists are not in the habit of acknowledging very important ancient manuscripts of Acts 20:28 which read “church of the Lord” rather than “church of God” since that would not be congenial to their apologetic mission. Even further, they do not like to point out that a respected and widely accepted Trinitarian translation, the RSV, translates the verse as “blood of His own Son” rather than “His (God’s) own blood” and many scholars agree with the RSV rendering because both external and internal evidence indicates this is how ancient Koine speakers went about saying such a thing. Why don’t Trinitarian apologists forthcoming about these facts?

    And these disturbing problems occur over and over and over. The same suspicious character of their claims arises when we come to John 1:18. Why do so many ancient manuscripts, and early Christian quotations, say “Son” rather than “God.” Again, do they really expect people to rest their faith upon such specious evidence? And why do Trinitarian apologists forget to tell anyone that the very important ancient manuscript Codex Sinaiticus does not read “God and Savior” a 2 Peter 1:1 but “Lord and Savior?”

    Why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as “God” at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees? Why do they translate this exact same word as “mighty” when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as “Mighty One” when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as “mighty” or “power” at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as “mighty” or “power” or “strength” and when they want to translate the same word as “God”? And have they also not noticed that a name given to something in the Old Testament Scriptures is not necessarily identifying what that thing is? For example, shall we conclude that when Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Our Righteousness” that Jerusalem is being identified as God?

    And it certainly does not stop there. Trinitarian scholars admit the Greek grammar of Hebrews 1:8 allows a different translation than the one they prefer. And strangely enough, that different translation not only fits perfectly with the context, it makes sense with what immediately follows, “God, YOUR God, has anointed you.” Why then do they deny it? And how do they live with a translation that consequently results in God’s God anointing God so that God could make God above God’s peers? It’s absurd but it seems they don’t care.

    The same absurdity occurs at Zechariah 12:10 where the Trinitarian translation has Yahweh being pierced but the people mourning for someone else. Why don’t they bother to appreciate how the Apostle John himself cites the verse? But it seems they don’t really care if their translation is completely incoherent nor do they bother to tell anyone that many scholars insist the verse should be translated as “They shall look to me concerning the one they pierced and they will mourn for him.” No, they don’t tell you these facts nor do they tell you that there are alternative manuscript readings of this verse that do not read “me” but “him” (or “the one”).

    Under every single turned stone one finds the same thing. At John 1:1, their own Trinitarian scholars admit the second occurrence of the Greek word theos (“God/god”) means “divine” in a qualitative sense (what the Word was). Yet they translate the word as it if was the quantitative sense (who the Word was). Why do they resort to such things? And how is it that Trinitarians, who claim to know all about the Greek text in John 1:1, fail to see the problem with having two different definitions for the word “God” in the same breath where both instances are joined by a conjunction in the Greek! And why do these same Trinitarians inconsistently translate John 10:33 as “a man make yourself God” rather than “a man make yourself a god” especially of Jesus’ response in the next verse which demonstrates how he himself understood the Jewish charge? Why does this translation bear all the marks of a “made to fit” exercise?

    And why do Trinitarians ignore verses like John 12:45 and John 14:9 when they interpret John 20:28? Are such observations too inconvenient to their claims? Why do they make a convenient exception to the rules of Greek grammar concerning John 20:28? Why do they fail to see that John 20:28 is about seeing and believing and Jesus had taught his disciples what to think about He and His Father in terms of seeing and believing at John 14:9? And when they interpret John 10:30, why do they also ignore John 17:22 where Jesus prays his disciples will be one “just as we are one.” Is it because these obvious facts would completely nullify their claims?

    Why do Trinitarian apologists claim Jesus was omniscient, all-knowing, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said ONLY one person, the Father knows the day and hour of his return? Why do they also fail to see that this means the third person of the Trinity doesn’t know either? And why do they cite verses where Jesus is said to “know all things” but hypocritically pass over 1 John 2:20,27 which say Christians “know all things?”

    Why do Trinitarian apologists isolate the words in Titus 2:13, “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” in order to claim this verse appear as though Jesus is “our great God and Savior,” when they know very well the whole text actually refers to Jesus as “the glory of our God and Savior”? And why do they have such a deep desire to change the noun “glory” (doxa) into the adjective “glorious” in this verse. Is it not obvious their motives are to suit their claims? This is the “evidence” which people are supposed to stake their faith upon?

    At every turn one finds the same thing. And it gets even worse. Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus “another god” who was subject to the “most true God”? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they insist upon misrepresenting these early Christians? And why do they present Tertullian as a Trinitarian just as they are, when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist? Why all the dishonesty?

    Why do Trinitarians resort to unbridled eisegetical interpretations everywhere we look while screaming how wrong it is to do such things out of the other side of their mouth? For example, why do they imagine a three person God into Genesis 1:26 and Matthew 28:19 when there is absolutely no reason to do so? Why do they insist the “US” and “OUR” of Genesis 1:26 are the three persons of the Trinity without having any evidence whatsoever that they should indeed make such claims? Are we really supposed to just use our imaginations without regard for the facts?

    And why do Trinitarians find it so necessary to spill so much ink trying to justify their doctrine? Should not the identity of our God be just a little more simple than this? Did not Jesus come to show us the way to the true God? Who was that? The entire Bible is about God but we are supposed to believe that the true identity of God is not that easy to see? They resort to writing volumes of books to try and justify their doctrine. Why is it so necessary to write volumes upon volumes of books that try to justify the true identity of God? Did God really make it that difficult to figure out who he is? Why do Trinitarians indicate that God is like a puzzle that must be assembled? One God, assembly required. Isn’t that just a bit absurd? And do they not know that their definition of their God is a written man-made image of God rather than the Living God himself? It seems they do not.

    And why is it that Trinitarian apologists so often seem to be denying the above facts are significant? Is it because they need to water down inconvenient facts? And why do they deny all the facts which indicate their doctrine is completely wrong? For example, why do they conveniently deny “the Lord” of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus even though the context demands it is Jesus? Is it because this verse proves their doctrine is simply wrong? And why have so many contrivances been designed to avoid the implications of evidence which indicates their doctrine is wrong? Why do they find it necessary to do such things? And why do those contrivances fall apart under the scrutiny of intelligent minds?

    These are but a few examples of the myriads of problems with their claims. The suspicious character of Trinitarian claims is found everywhere one looks. They go to great lengths to try and make their claims “sound good” and “appear correct” but when an honest and reasonable person looks just a little closer, it become quickly obvious that things are not what they were made to appear. Why? If their claims have any veracity whatsoever, why do they have so many highly suspicious problems attached to them? Why do they need to work so hard to justify their claims? And why do they need to make so many excuses for themselves. Why are these problems associated with every single claim they make?

    Any honest and rational person will realize that when someone makes a host of claims, and every single one of them is highly questionable, that something is wrong, very wrong. And all this is just what anyone can find on the surface of things if he actually looks. When a person digs even deeper, there he will find the foundations of corruption.

    Jesus came to show us the way to the only true God, the Living God, his God. Eternal life is to know the only true God, his God. There is nothing complicated about it at all. Why it is not clear to people that men have corrupted this truth to lead people away from the true and living God and to another God of their own making?


Please 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

%d bloggers like this: