A response to 1.2.7
Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication

The Gospel according to Paul?

In His chapter on Paul as the "originator" of Christian doctrine, Mr. Al-Khadi makes a few statements, wich have to be examined in the cold light of honesty , truth, common sense, and above all, scripture. These statements are as follows:

1) Paul was a willfull liar, and contradicted his own testimony with a sworn statement.

2)Paul changed the law of God, and thereby directly contradicted the teaching of Jesus.

3)The doctrine that salvation from sin and hell is through the fact that Christ died as a sin offering for the sin of humanity is an innovation of Paul.

4)The original companions of Jesus were Muslims

5)There were doctrinal differences between Paul and the other apostles (Peter and Barnabas)

6)There was a breach between Paul and the other apostles because of doctrinal differences.

 Quotations from the book "What did Jesus really say" are in green.

1) Paul was a willfull liar, and contradicted his own testimony with a sworn statement.

"However, we can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look"
Let us now really have a look! The verses mentioned are:
Acts 9:19-29 "And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."

Acts 26:19-21 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

Apparently contradicted by:
Galatians 1:15-23 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

Before we continue with the longer discussion, JP Holding has another response to the problem above, quoted by Al-Kadhi as found in Reverend Dr. Davies' "The First Christian".

Let us have a look at some of the statements that the author makes, and then compare it to what the text really says. Here is one of his statements:

" Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped to Jerusalem."

Here we find the first gross misrepresentation of what the text actually says: It does NOT state that Paul escaped to Jerusalem, or that he went to Jerusalem immediately after leaving Damascus! This is what the text really says:

"Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples"
The text simply says that Paul escaped. The next sentence starts with "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem..." Please note that there is NO MENTION OF TIME ELAPSED from his escape from Damascus to his arrival in Jerusalem ! To say that he "escaped to Jerusalem. " is to add to the text.

The second text (Pauls speech to Agrippa) describes Paul's life ministry in even broader terms: it is impossible to make any comment on the chronology of events based on this statement. There is therefore no contradiction between the three accounts: the facts about his trip to Arabia simply adds detail wich was not deemed necessary in the context of the first two accounts.

"Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?). "
Here is the second misrepresentation of scriptures: "Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" " The author here substitutes the word "conferred" (or "consulted", in other translations) with "spoke" and changes the meaning of the text. If you look at the context of Galatians, Paul is telling the Galatians that he did not receive his message from people, but from God. (Galaians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.") By stating that he "did not confer", he obviously meant that he did not receive any input regarding the content of his message from anybody but God.

The texts in Acts state that he proclaimed this message to the people of Damascus, wich is something quite different. Again the contradiction only exists in the fantasies of the author.

Here is another statement:

"On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. "
What does the text actually say?
"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"
See how the author inserted the word "ALL" to bend the meaning of the text and produce a pseudo-contradiction? The text definitely does NOT specify ALL of the apostles, or even wich apostles. The text in Galatians simply adds detail, omitted in the other account.
"Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. "
The author here displays some ignorance: The terms "disciple" and "apostle" are not synonyms. The apostles were a small group of people that consisted mainly of the close friends (the twelve) of Jesus, and also one or two others who, like Paul, had personal experience of Jesus. A disciple is any person who believes in Jesus, and studies his teachings. The texts and do not contradict each other since they refer to two different groups of people: The disciples in general, and the apostles. ( the apostles were obviously all discples, but since there were only a handfull of apostles and thousands of disciples, the opposite was obviously not true.) This is a blatant untruth!! The author is either extremely ignorant of the scriptures or....

All the apostles saw Jesus after he died and was raised from the dead, which is exactly what Paul also claimed to have seen, nothing more, nothing less.

Please note: Paul writes here why the Corinthians should believe him: Not because he says so, but because of the other eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after his death and resurrection, and he calls these witnesses by name, so that people could look them up and and speak to them themselves. Note that he states that most of the over 500 witnesses were still alive and available for interrogation! He must have had some nerve to call on all these witnesses if he knew that he was preaching a lie! If he was preaching a lie, people would have unmasked him, and his teachings would not have survived a day.

Verse 11 is important: Paul states here that he teaches exactly the same as all those eyewitnesses. Remember that the new testament was not written only by Paul, but also by other eyewitnesses who all teach exactly the same.

Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus. On what authority does the author claim that he lied about it? How on earth can you explain the total turnabout in Paul's life if something did not happen to him on the road to Damascus? If Paul had not met Jesus on that road, it is impossible to explain his conversion!

What about apparent inconsistencies in the different accounts of that meeting?

Did the people with Paul hear the voice or not?

Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless [Acts 9:7] Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate [Acts 26:14]

The NIV-translation:

Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction, as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking. So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place: "Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29].Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound. As for the stance of Paul's companions, Haley notes "the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear". It is also entirely plausible that when they first saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then they could have got up off the ground and stood there motionless.

The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points.

We have already shown that the author inserted the word "all" before "apostles". In the next sentence, the text is again changed to produce a contradiction: Just look at the real text: When Paul was with the apostles, they were in Jerusalem, wich was a city in the province of Judaea, and not Judaea itself. The people of Judaea were not exposed directly to Paul's until some time later. Until then, they did not know him personally.

I think it will be abundantly clear to the honest reader that the claims that Paul was a liar are totally unfounded and mostly based on distortions of scripture.

2)Paul changed the law of God, and thereby directly contradicted the teaching of Jesus.

In order to answer this question, the reader must please bear with me, so that we can gain a bit of background knowledge about the holy scriptures that the author of " What did Jesus really say" sadly does not seem to posess.

What the Taurat teaches about the law of God.

According to the Taurat, the law of God consists of two parts: The moral law, and the ritual law.

The Moral law.
The moral law has to do with the essence of man: his mind and soul.( Please do not understand me wrongly: I do not wish to say that the body is not important!) God is primarily concerned about our relationship with Him and our relationships with our fellow humans. We all know that material things cannot satisfy the human soul, or make him happy. It is only in our relationships with our parents, brothers and sisters, spouses, children and friends, and ultimately, our Creator that our lives become meaningfull. For this reason, God's moral law is all about relationships.

Moses received the moral law from God, after He had miraculously written it on two tablets of stone. The first tablet concerns our relationship with God:

The second tablet has to do with our relationships with our fellow humans: God states that any transgression of his moral law will be punished by (spiritual ) death, in other words, hell. Even in paradise, He when He gave Adam one command to fulfill, the stated punishment for disobedience was death: In the book of Leviticus, God states that He is so serious about his moral law, that ignorance of the law is no excuse: if you break the law, you deserve to be punished: The ritual law .
The ritual law differs from the moral law in one very important aspect: Where the moral law is concerned with our relationship with God and our fellow humans, the ritual law prescribes a set of symbolic rituals that point the believer to and remind him of Gods's moral law.

The ritual law is therefore totally dependant on the moral law. Without the moral law the ritual the ritual law is just this: empty ritual. What does it help me to wash myself before I pray, if there is still sin in my heart when I pray? It is very obvious that the ritual has no power to bring me closer to God, and indeed that is not its function.


The ritual law and purification. I invite the serious reader to delve a bit deeper into the Taurat than did the author of "WDJRS", and read the book of Leviticus, the third book of the Taurat. You will notice that the largest part of the book is concerned with ritual purification from sin. When you read the Taurat attentively, you will note the following dilemma: God demands total obedience to his moral law. Breaking the law means punishment in hell. Yet we know from experience that no human, (after the human race was cast from the presence of God, read the first three chapters of Genesis) has ever been able to remain sinless. (Even the Qur'an tells Mohammed to ask forgiveness for his own sin, so even Mohammed was a sinner.) Does this mean that all mankind is doomed to hell? God loved his people so much that He provided in the Taurat rituals of purifacation from sin. Many of these rituals were very much like Gushl: A ritual wash before prayer. The difference is, however, that the rituals of the Taurat used blood instead of water.

The most important ritual was that of the sin offering: All of God's people had sinned, but trough the sin offering, a person would obtain complete forgiveness of his sins. God's law demands that a person who sins must die, but through the sin offering, THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL IS SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE SINNER. Please note the words: " and it shall be forgiven him."

The person who brought the sin offering could be absolutely certain that his sin was forgiven, and therefore absolutely sure of salvation. It was as if the life of the sacrificial animal was substituted for his own! The sin offering is so important to God that the words "Sin offering" appear about ninety (90) times in the Taurat!!

What did Jesus teach about the law of God?
Jesus summed up God's law as follows:

Please take note: Jesus states that EVERY SINGLE LAW, wether it be a moral or ritual law, HANGS ON THE LAW OF LOVE! Any act that keeps to the letter of the law, but not to the law of love is SIN!


Jesus and the moral law:
Jesus stressed the importance of keeping God's moral law: That is what most of the famous Sermon on the Mount was about. Note the words: "these least commandments". Jesus was talking about THE SPECIFIC COMMANDMENTS THAT HE EXPOUNDED IN THE VERSES FOLLOWING. In these verses, Jesus was not talking about the ritual law, he was talking of the moral law! There is not one single ritual described here.

Please take note: Jesus teaches that the moral law of God demands absolute perfection ! Anything less is not acceptable to God. There is NO COMPROMISE!

Jesus and the ritual law.
Jesus was absolutely uncompromising in his adherance to the law of Love. What he preached, he practised. Sometimes it would seem to people who looked at the outer appearance only that he was breaking the Law. What Jesus taught through his deeds, however, was that where the law of God was concerned, appearances were nothing, and love incarnated in deeds was the whole essence of the law. To all outward appearances, Jesus breaks the law of the Sabbath. Does this mean that the man who said that " Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away" is not practising what he preaches? Not at all: Jesus is obedient to the law of Love, in wich light the law of the Sabbath is to be interpreted: His friends are hungry, so he gives them something to eat. Jesus teaches the same lesson here: All laws are derived from the law of love, and therefore only obeyed as far as it obeyes the law of love. The Pharisees were unmasked by Jesus: Although they were extremely diligent in keeping the letter of the law, they did not love. Everything they did meant nothing, it was empty! Ritual is concerned with the outside of the cup, the law of love is concerned with its contents. Jesus says that when the inside is clean, the outside will take care of itself. In Jesus' own words: The outward appearance of obedience to the ritual law is not important! It is adhering to the law of love toward man and God that is important.


The reason for this has already been stated: The object of ritual law or law of outward appearance is only to remind us of and focus us on the moral law of love. Apart from that, it means nothing. If the law of love is adhered to, ritual is not necessary to get the outward appearances right.

Jesus and the ritual law of sacrifice.
What did Jesus teach about the ritual law of sin offering? The foundation of all ritual law in the Taurat was ritual purification, mainly by blood. To refresh our reader's memory:

When Jesus ate with his companions the night before he was murdered on the cross, he said the following: Jesus identifies himself unequivocally with the sin offering, or rather, as the Sin Offering.

In the same way that ritual purity points the believer to moral purity (the law of love), the ritual of sin offering (the sacrifice of an animal to substitute for the life of the believer, and thereby atoning for sin) pointed the believers of the Taurat to the Perfect Sacrifice that God would provide, to atone for the sin of the world. The rituals were audio-visual reminders of God's love for mankind (the sin-offering), and His demand for our love in return.(other rituals of purity) This is what Jesus meant when he said:

Jesus fulfilled the moral law: He is the only person in history who is totally without sin. (The Qur'an agrees to this).

JESUS ALSO FULFILLED THE RITUAL LAW: THE SACRIFICE OF AN ANIMAL IN SIN OFFERING POINTED THE WAY TO THE PERFECT SACRIFICE THAT GOD WOULD PROVIDE. The ritual law has therefore fulfilled it's purpose in Jesus: Once the destination is reached, the map is not needed any more!

Pauls teaching regarding the law.

Paul and the moral law.

The same uncompromising doctrine of moral law that Jesus taught was taught by Paul!

Paul and the ritual law.
For Paul, as for Jesus, ritual was merely a pointer to the moral law. Outward appearance was only important in sofar it said something about the inner state of the soul.

Paul: Romans 2:28 " For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Jesus: " There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
  Paul seemingly disobeyed the law of circumcision, but in reality obeyed, because he was faithfull to the law of love. Jesus seemingly disobeyed the laws of the Sabbath and that of ritual purity, but in reality obeyed, because he was faithfull to the law of love. If Paul seemed to "relax" the ritual law it was because he followed the example of Jesus!

For Paul, as for Jesus, any ritual that added unnecessary burden or bondage to believers without aiding them in the law of love could be discarded:

Paul: Galatians 2:3 "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage..." 
 Jesus: Matthew 23: 4 "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
Paul was talking here about people who wanted to burden believers by forcing them to be circumcised. Jesus accused the Pharisees of forcing people to obey ritual laws that did not bring them closer to God. Forcing people to adhere to ritual laws that no longer fulfilled the objective it was designed for was regarded as sin by both Jesus and Paul!

A modern day parallel would be to force people to pray in a language they don't understand.

What does Paul call the "Curse of the law"?
Paul simply states that because God made a law, we were all condemmed under that law, since all mankind has sinned. It is not the law that is bad, it is the breaking of the law that causes the condemnation. Thank God for the sin offering!

We see that it is only by creative editing of scriptures that one can come to the conclusion that Paul contradicted Jesus in his doctrine of the Law, or that he changed the law of Jesus.

3)The doctrine that salvation from sin and hell is through the fact that Christ died as a sin offering for the sin of humanity is an innovation of Paul.

The basic premise of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died as a substitute in our place, that he took the punishment that we should have received on him. He is our sin offering.

Since this core doctrine of Christianity is denied by Islam, and since the Quran endorses the Bible, Muslims have always tried to prove that this doctrine was an innovation of Paul, and that the other prophets of the Taurat and Zabur, and Jesus did not teach it.

It is a sad fact, however that Islamic "scholars" prey on the ignorance of Muslims about the content of the pre-Islamic scriptures in order to sell them their propaganda. Everyone  with some knowledge of the Taurat, Zabur and Prophetic writings knows that belief in the Substitution and Sin Offering is as old as belief in Yahwe (the Hebrew name for God) itself.

We will now, only very briefly, show that the Substitution was the basic doctrine of salvation of all prophets preceding Paul, including Jesus. So let's take a quick tour of the Taurat, Zabur and Injeel and the concept of substitution.

Please forgive us the repetition of some facts: It is done because of their importance!

He is propably one of the best known prophets because God ordered him to do the unthinkable: to sacrifice his son.

Important aspects of Ibrahim's sacrifice:

     ---God made a covenant with Ibrahim, that through the offspring of his son Isaac he would be
     the father of many nations. Because God is perfect, we know that he would keep his
     ---God commanded Ibrahim to slaughter his son Isaac. Does this mean that he was about to
     break his covenant?
     ---When God, who is the Creator of the universe, commands something, it must be done. Isaac
     was already as good as dead!!
     ---When Ibrahim lifted his hand to kill his son, God intervened and substituted the life of a ram
     for the life of Ibrahim's son.
     ---It was through the substitution of the life of an animal for the life of the son that
     God's covenant with Ibrahim was fulfilled. If there was no substitution the covenant
     would have been broken!!

The passover lamb
Remember when Musa and Imran (Moses and Aaron) wanted to free the Israelites from slavery in
Egypt, and Pharao refused to let them go? God decided to play hardball with this king who only
thought about his own pocket, and how he could exploit God's people to fill it.

God commanded that every Israelite household should slaughter a lamb without blemish, and that
the blood of the lamb should be painted on the doorposts. Where ever there was blood on the
door, the angel of death would not kill the firstborn in that house.

     The substitution of the life of the passover lamb for the lives of God's people was so
     important to Him that He commanded it to be commerorated as a holiday for ever. The
     passover became one of the most important festivals of the Jewish religious calender.
     It was on the night before God saved them from slavery in Egypt that they sacrificed the first
     Passover lamb. Through the centuries the Passover has been the symbol of God's salvation of
     His people.

The sin offering

Musa and his people fled Egypt, but before they could enter into Palestine (the promised land), God
wanted them to know how they should live. So while they were camped at the foot of a high
mountain, God called Musa up the mountain and gave him the law.As discussed before, the punishment for sin is spiritual death (HELL). God's law demands it. But God provided a way for atonement through the substitution of the life of an animal for the life of the sinner.

Although Islam denies this, the doctrine of the sin offering is the best documented cultic law in the history of the Jewish people and it is proven by archaeology that this was the focal point of all the activities that took place in the temple in Jerusalem! There is no way that this doctrine could have been
inserted into the Taurat at a later stage since the whole of the Taurat, the historical books in the Bible and the prophets, as well as archaeology support it.

Please note:
Because God is Holy, He demands complete sinlessness in His law. That is the only standard that is acceptable to Him. That is why He punishes even those sins we do unintentionally and  unknowingly. Poison still kills even if the person who takes it is unaware that it is poison! In  the same fashion sin seperates us from God even if we are unaware of the sin.  After Adam's fall in paradise, mankind is seperated from God, and therefore unable to attain to the law's standard of complete sinlessness.

What about salvation through keeping the law?
IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THROUGHOUT THE TAURAT THAT NO ONE IS CONSIDERED SINLESS BY GOD. Therefore, although it is theoretically possible to go to heaven by never breaking the law, the reality of life is that no one has ever lived a life without sin .


God, in His Love, provided the sin offering as a substitute for the life of the person who sinned, to fulfill the demand of the law.



 This is in contrast with what Islam teaches: That one can never know.

Just as Islam is based on five pillars, one could say that two of the most important pillars of the religion of the all prophets of God up to Jesus were the Passover and the Sin Offering!

Please note that this has nothing to do with "appeasing an angry God with blood" as Muslims so often alledge. God is almighty, selfsufficient, does not need anything from us, and definitely does not derive pleasure from the shedding of blood! The sin offering does emphasize in what extremely severe light God regards sin!!!

Dawud and the Zabur
It is all too obvious to anyone that an animal (or even another person, for that matter) cannot really substitute for the life of a human. The prophet Dawud knew this, and under God's inspiration said the following:

The word "redeem" means to buy back: David says that God would pay the price that is demanded by His law to save him from the grave (hell).

Isiah 53
The prophet Isiah lived about 700 years before Jesus and gave God's people a concrete answer to their question on how God would pay the price of their redemption. When one first reads this chapter, one's first instinct is that this was written by Christians and inserted into the Bible later. Please remember that this chapter is word for word the same in the scriptures of modern Judaism, who deny that Jesus is the Messiah. The oldest available manuscript of this chapter comes from the Qumran scrolls and date from before the time of Jesus.

The following points are important:

     ---The servant is a person, not an animal as Isiah was used to sacrifice as sin offering.
     ---The servant is without sin, but took the sin of many on him. (Remember the Passover lamb  had to be without blemish?)
     ---The servant dies (is sacrificed), and rises again from the dead.

It is obvious by now, that the substitution of an animal for a person was not enough, but that God would provide the perfect sacrifice. The animal sacrifice was merely a pointer to the real Sacrifice that would come!

Yahyah ibn Zakariyah
Prophet John the Baptist was a contemporary of Messiah Jesus. One day while he was preaching , he saw Jesus coming towards him and said:

Jesus the Messiah
The night before his crucifixion, Jesus celebrated the passover with his disciples. This is what he told them:

The next day Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose from death on the third day. 


Decide for yourself!

4)The original companions of Jesus were Muslims

Islam teaches about Jesus that
---He was a normal man, just like any other
---He was born of a virgin
---He was a prophet of God
---He did not die, but was raised to heaven
According to a publication called "Kitaabul Imaan" any other doctrine about Jesus is KUFR. To believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day is KUFR.

To validate the claim that the first followers of Jesus were Muslims, one must be able to prove that there existed a group of people at that time who believed exactly this about Jesus.

It would be possible to prove that such a group existed either by their own writings or by somebody elses refutations of their doctrines. If you read the new testament, there is no mention of or refutation of a doctrine that Jesus was a normal man who did not die but was taken up alive in heaven. Paul goes out of his way, however to refute other heresies about Jesus, for instance that he was not taken up in heaven at all. There is not a shred of evidence that a group of people existed who taught that Jesus did not die at all but was taken up to heaven alive.

As we will have to point out repeatedly, the Gospel of Barnabas is a pathetic fraud that is discussed in a seperate chapter.

The facts are as follows:

The Christians Paul persecuted believed that Jesus died and was resurrected:

Peter, the leader of the Companions of Jesus:
 May we suggest to our readres that they read the second chapter of the Acts of the apostles: Peter gave a speech, telling the people of Jerusalem (WHO WERE ALL WITNESSES TO THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS) about Jesus.

Because of these words, over three thousand people believed in him! The earliest Christians became Cristians because of the death and resurrection of Jesus!

Philip, one of the companions of Jesus.
The following incident happend before Paul was converted:

Please note that the Ethiopian was reading from Isiah 53, wich we have already quoted. The servant of Isiah's prophecy dies.
The next verses after the quoted ones say: and Even before Paul came along, Philip proved from the Prophetic Scriptures written by Isiah some 700 years before that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin and was raised again from the dead.

Was he a Muslim?

Stephen was the first Christian martyr, and Paul sanctioned his murder. Here he witnesses to a crowd of Jews who are about to kill him:

Please note the words: "...the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers..." . Speaking of Jesus, it is obvious that he believed that Jesus was murdered, that he died.  And then he saw the resurrected Jesus in heaven just before he died.

Was he a Muslim?

Just before he died, he prayed to Jesus to forgive his murderers their sin.

Would a Muslim pray to Jesus?

John, the beloved companion of Jesus:
The "Gospel of John" was dictated by John, the closest friend Jesus had when he was on earth:

The following is a verse from the first epistle of John, stressing the fact that he was an eye witness:

This is what Jesus' closest companion taught about him:

Was John a Muslim?

Apart from the fraudulent  "Gospel of Barnabas" the author has not advanced one single historical source to prove that the first followers of Jesus believed that Jesus did not die but was taken up in heaven alive. Not one of the many well preserved heretical scriptures from the first century support such a theory. We can only work with the facts (scriptures) available, anything else is conjecture. (There were Gnostic groups (Like that of Basilides) who taught that Jesus did not die on the cross. They did this because they denied his humanity, and because a god cannot die, they denied his death. They could not be Muslims!)

5)There were doctrinal differences between Paul and the other apostles (Peter and Barnabas), and
6)There was a breach between Paul and the other apostles because of doctrinal differences.

  Paul states here that the leaders of Jesus` followers approved of him and comissioned him to be a missionary to the gentiles.

The apostolic conference:

Please note the following:
---Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation with them" : Paul and Barnabas fought together against  the people who taught that faith in the sin offering of Christ was not enough but that one had to be circumcised to be saved.
---Peter, the leader of the companions of Jesus defended  Paul's doctrine about the circumcision.
---Among the people present at the meeting were the apostles, who were the original companions of Jesus.

Paul and the teachings of Peter

Paul clearly states that there should be no schism between students of him and Peter, since they are one in Christ. Instead of countering and debunking the teachings of Peter, he endorses it!

What then was the infamous argument about? Definitely not doctrine! (The nature of Jesus, the fact that he did die on the cross, his resurrection or his role as sin offering to the world.)  According to Paul, Peter was not completely honest in his actions towards the Jewish Christians. Although Peter also believed that the ritual law of the old covenant was not necessary to become a Christian, and did not practise the ritual law himself when he was with believers from non-Jewish background, he was reluctant to admit it to a group of Jewish believers who felt that it was still necessary.

The argument was resolved in a brotherly fashion, there and then.

Did Paul consider him a hypocryte? Paul said that his action in this instance was hypocritical. He definitely did not claim that hipocricy was a significant trait of Peter's caracter! To say that Paul said so is to lay words in his mouth. Beware of giving false witness!!

We know from all available data that Paul and Barnabas were buddies in the mission field. They did everything together, until they disagreed about the suitability of a travelling companion, and each went a different way.

To say that the parting of ways was because of doctrinal differences is either to be dishonest in the extreme or to be absolutely blinded by prejudice, since everyting is crystal clear in the text.

But what about the "Gospel of Barnabas" ?
There are two writings attributed to Barnabas: The epistle of "Barnabas" dates from the second century. The author of this document is unknown (it was possibly someone else called Barnabas) but the doctrines in it are basically that of orthodox Christianity.

The "Gospel of Barnabas" is a forgery dating from the middle ages, written with a specific political agenda in mind. It has been exposed as a definite fraud, and it is not to their credit that some people still propagate it as authentic.

What about the doctines that Paul so actively preach against in the book of Galatians?
The doctines Paul opposed stated that although Jesus died for the sins of mankind, it was not enough. To be saved one had to be circumcised.

Take note of the following:
---Although Paul says that Peter, out of fear for some people, at one occasion acted against the gospel, he emphasises strongly that this was NOT wat Peter usually taught. In fact, at another occasion Peter defended Pauls teaching on the circumcision! Peter , Barnabas, and the other apostles were NOT the false prophets!
---In refuting these teachings Paul states the following:

Pauls says: If man could be sinless by keeping the law, the sin offering would not be necessary: Christ would have died in vain.

This proves that the people who taught that circumcision was essential for salvation also taught that Christ died!

They could therefore not be Muslims!!
We think it is unnecessary to answer every allegation that the author makes in this attack on Paul and the basic tenets of Christianity in this chapter. What has been said above should prove our point abundantly.

Let us just summarize in conclusion:
The allegation that Paul is a liar is based on carefull distortion of scripture, and in one case, the authors lack of knowledge of Greek. (We do not hold this against him, but he could have asked anybody)
The allegation that Paul contradicted the law of Jesus is not true, on the basis that Jesus himself taught that the letter of the ritual law was not important, but that there was no compromise allowed where the law of love was concerned. This is exactly what Paul taught. We deplore the author's silence about the passages where Jesus apparantly broke the ritual law, in order to teach important spiritual truths.
The allegation that Paul invented the doctrine of atonement for sin by sin offering or substitution is based on gross ignorance of the scriptures.
The allegation that the original followers of Jesus were Muslims is fantasy, with no historical evidence what so ever. Wishfull thinking provides no proof. All available historical data indicate that the companions of Jesus taught that he died on the cross as a sin offering, and was resurrected from the dead on the third day.
We have seen that it is wrong to alledge that Paul and Peter differed doctrinally, since Paul openly endorsed Peter's teachings. Their difference was not one of opinion, but based on Peters actions at one occasion. We deplore the way the author puts words in Pauls mouth. Acting in a hypocritical way on one occasion does not mean that that is a usual trait of the person's caracter.
In the same way the scriptures state clearly that Paul and Barnabas parted ways because they disagreed about a travelling companion. To say that they parted because of doctrinal differences is a blatant untruth.

The truth is clear to anyone who can read!

The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page