That Prophet by Quanith Ilahi

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 1

THAT PROPHET

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fireâ&#x20AC;? -Matthew 3:11-12

1. Who stated this ? 2. About whom this statement was made ?

AHMED ALI

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Index Forward Introduction 1. A Prophecy

10 14 19

i. Meaning of prophecy ii. Not prophesied by John nor about Jesus iii.John baptized Jesus iv. Baptism in water continued- still continues in the churches v. John did not join the company of Jesus - nor his disciples

2. Not prophesied by John

i. His enquiery dampens the contention of church ii. John enquired from prison - until then Jesus was regarded as an equal prophet to himself iii.Before imprisonment? iv. John never declared about Jesus - neither before imprisonment nor after - a strong point to rebut the claim of the church

3. Bible study - reveals

i. Jesus baptized - but in what? ii. Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit iii.A reminder of original prophecy iv. Jesus - A forerunner of That Prophet v. Baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus - After glorification - only hypothesis

4. Instable stand of church 38 i. An attempt for diversion ii. Another attempt to mislead 5. Jesus himself admitted 42 6. Baptism according to church 44 7. Important hints which help to arrive at the correct interpretation 45 8. Jesus baptized in water and church veils it 51 i.Baptism given by Jesus ascribed to have been given by his disciples ii.One who baptized in water cannot be one that baptizes in Holy Spirit

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 3

iii.Another specimen that shows how church tried to pervert from the

real teachings of Jesus 9. Accomplishment of baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus as speculated by church - A conjecture 55 i. Holy Spirit sat upon disciples a main criterion for baptism in Holy Spirit as described by church ii. Some humours that prick the church

10. Pentecost event - not the accomplishment of baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus nor the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel as church supposes 63 i.

None of the terms of the Joelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prophecy agree with the presumed fulfilment ii. Bible the two edged sharp sword - A simititude for two tongued attitude of the church iii. A scrutiny of the accomplishment of baptism in holy spirit by Jesus on Pentecost event as proclaimed - disqualifies the claim - Jesus had no share in it iv. In this way the church is deprived of the claim as Jesus the person that was to baptize in Holy Ghost. And what has been speculated by the church as the baptism in Holy Ghost is not at all a truth, but a conjecture and a myth

11. Baptism commanded by Jesus

i. Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; command for baptism to be given - in holy spirit or in water? ii. Disciples baptized only in water even after glorification of Jesus and even after Pentecost event a clear testimony that what church speculates as baptism in holy spirit- a myth iii. The descent of holy spirit and remaining on any one is not baptism in holy spirit - disclosed iv. Mystery vanished - claims of church rebutted v. Baptism in water is still continued in churches - a strong point to rebut the false notion of the church as regards to the issue of baptism

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 4

12. According to prophecy the person about whom prophesied, should appear only after the prophesying person 79 i. John and Jesus were contemporaries - A known fact to church ii. Both were of same age iii. In some cases, the departure of the prophesying person is not necessary

13. The three main categories of the events generally mentioned in foretellings

i.Time factor - example ii. First three gospels try to maintain the claim basing on time factor but of no use iii. John never expected Jesus would come to him - disproves the claim of church iv. Age factor - example v. Church avails no chance to justify this claim even by means of agefactor vi. Period factor - example vii. Discretion left to readers

14. Church wantonly does not look at the facts.

i.Church forwards contradictory verses

15. Was Jesus really greater than John?

i.Comparison between John and Jesus ii.John and Jesus were co-equals iii. A passage from Bible discussed- divinity ascribed to Jesus under this passage disproved iv. Miracles of Jesus - not at all useful to Church to uphold superiority of Jesus

16. Births of John and Jesus compared i. Conception - a process makes essential of the association of male(sperms)and female (ova) ii. Mary was virgin - So birth of Jesus a miracle iii.Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s birth was also a miracle iv. Conception and some scientific points

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 5

v. John’s birth a greater miracle than Jesus’ in the light of scientific facts vi. Barren and menopause - or virgin conceiving - a point of improbability yet possible by means of miracle vii. John’s birth - not a miracle church contends viii. Hypothesis won’t do- scripture is authority ix. Zacharias’ prayer not an authority to prove his capability in giving birth x. Similar incident of ancient times : in case of Abraham and Sarah xi. Scripture provides two important reasons why the couple (Zacharias and Elisabeth) could not bring forth a child - A strong support to our arguments xii. Zacharias himself admits : A further support to our arguments xiii. Zacharias’ prayer for a child and when it is granted his astonishment not a self contradiction but his obvious inquisitiveness xiv. Mary’s and Elisabeth’s conceptions - equated by Angel xv. If the case was not improbable no assurance would have been given, saying as - ‘Is anything impossible with God?’ xvi. Example xvii. Some points speak superiority of John over Jesus xviii. Mightier than I - can in noway be attributed to the person of Jesus

17. A law giving prophet was to come

115

i. Church interprets in an another way ii. Church never admits the advent of a prophet after Jesus iii. That prophet was yet to come with new law after Jesus iv. Did Jesus give new law so as to attribute this term of prophecy to him? v. Jews misunderstood that Jesus was breaking the law - while church speculated that he was giving them a new law vi.Jesus followed the law of Moses and exhorted men to follow it meticulously vii. Interpretations of the church - a glaring contradiction viii. Examination of the verse discloses the facts ix. Law cannot be completed - But can ever be followed. x. Some verses which show the importance of observance of the law

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 6

xi. Till all be fulfilled - what ‘all’ ? All prophecies made in the books of Moses and prophets xii. Observance of law is a necessary means to obtain a high place in the kingdom of God xiii. The middle verse of the passage Matthew 5:17-19 inserted to create confusion and to invite towards their interpretation

18. Something about the prophets the role of church against ‘that prophet’ 142 19. Church forwards some Qur’anic verses to uphold its arguments 143 i. ii. iii. iv.

Introduction to the study of Qur’an Repetitions - yet contain new points Freewill and freedom of choice given Order to submit before Adam not confined to angels alone but included Iblis also v. Man can live only on the planet - Earth vi. The Jinns of Qur’an are the Giants of Bible vii. The likely misconception that Jesus possessed of Devine soul- ruled out viii. Worship of Devatas a meaningless act ix. Evil is made apparently good - a hook of Satan x. Repent like Adam - Be not arrogant like Satan xi. Qur’an revealed according to the necessity of time and demand of occasion

20. A number of prophets appeared after Moses had booksyet all followed the Mosaic law only - an authentic proof from Qur’an and Bible 159 i. Was David a law giving prophet merely because he was given a book? so is the case with Jesus and his book ii. Church contends that Jesus completed Mosaic law by himself and he gave new law at the time of his departure

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 7

21. The Bible

166

i.Gospel cannot be a new testament. (Example) ii.Church tries to attribute the prophecies about that prophet to the person of Jesus iii. Covenant is different from testament iv. Covenant is a synonym for devine law v. Testament was never made by God vi. Testament was neither made by Moses vii. Presumed new testament viii. Manipulation ix. New testament as presumed is not at all a new but old practice of Jews x. Not new testament but old passover xi. According to gospel John, not a new testament but a new commandment xii. Love each other, not a new law but a concise command to follow the existing Mosaic law

22. Devine law

177

i. Transgressions and forgiveness ii. But the case of opression differs iii. Instable stand of church on law

23. Apostleship was restricted to - 12 selected disciples 186 i. Peter - the chief apostle ii.Peter - the authorised person to lead and to feed the church iii.Present church was not built on Peterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shoulders

iv.Present church is founded by Paul on the debris of the church of Peter

24. The prophecy has been fulfilled in prophet Mohammad 194 i. First term of the prophecy ii. Holy Spirit according to context iii. Baptism in Holy Spirit declared iv. Second term of the prophecy

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 8

v. Third term of the prophecy vi. Exaggeration of the church vii. Prophets were sent to every people and nation viii. And further Qur’an instructs ix.Testimony by spiritual personalities in favour of Jesus, in addition to the scriptural prophecy - A boon x. Miracles - A special boon conferred upon Jesus xi. The community of Jesus - under law and order xii. Arab was not under law and order xiii. Arab - A barbarous and lawless community xiv. Jews - a community who were believers in only true God xv. Arabs were polytheists and idolators xvi. Jews were having a devine law of Moses xvii. Dark nation became torch bearers xviii. Mohammad - A universal prophet xix. Jesus was sent only to a community Known as Israelites xx. Prophet Mohammad for entire mankind xxi. Universal new law given through prophet Mohammad

25. Some excerpts of another prophecy by Jesus

222

i. Holy Ghost has been ever present - so the word ‘another’ does not qualify to Holy Ghost but to some other ii. Comforter means not the Holy Ghost iii.‘Another Holy Ghost’ is as meaningless as ‘another wind’

26. The last prophet - Mohammad

229

i. Jesus said ‘My real teachings would vanish away’

27. Had he really been sent for sacrifice

231

i. He tried his best of all means to save himself from crucifixion

28. Comforter brings into remembrance of what really had happened 233 i.Jesus exhorted to obhserve the law - comforter brings into remembrance ii.Jesus exhorted people to worship God- and obey him (Jesus). This is an eye-opener to church which regard him as incarnation of God. This point has been reminded by the comforter

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 9

iii.Jesus not son of God in literal sense - but all are sons of God in figurative sense - scriptures and Jesus agree: reminded by comforter

29. Comforter Mohammad reminded - all religous teachings of all prophets were/are one and the same 244 i.I leave peace with you. He publisheth the same peace

30. Comforter means prophet on whom descends Holy Spirit 248 31. Birth of Jesus - Twisted to mean as incarnation of God 249 i. Jesus was not accursed as church makes him to be. Comforter discloses he is honoured in thisworld and in the next ii. His mission - purpose ofadvent - brought into remembrance of the church by comforter

32. The comforter - Mohammad testifies the miracles of Jesus as devinely gifted 258 33. Holy Ghost is not comforter by himself - but acts as a mediator between God and comforter 260 i. What he hears - that he speaks ii. Every prophet of God was - the way, the truth and life

34. Rediculous accomplishment of the prophecies as shown in Acts 2:1-4 265 35. Misinterpretation leads to astray 266 36. Jesus will accuse christians who did not believe on prophet Mohammad 272

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 10

F O RWA R D Man is the most evolved creation in the universe. Why is he attained such a status? Becuase man has been given commonsense. There are two important fields to lead the life for a human being. 1. physical field. 2. Religious field. He will be more successful in these two fields only with his commonsense. He has already attained a lot of sucess. He analyses his profits and losses in the fields in which he works. If he feels that he can gain profits then only he does that work. At the same time he stops his work if he faces loss. Everybody does the same in regard with loss and profit. Nobody likes to invite loss in his routine life. Hence he creates such situations, which do not cause any physical harms, with the help of his commonsense. With this commonsense he is leading his life successfully. Whareas if the matter of his religious field comes he is not availing his commonsense for loss and gain. He does his duty with the help of sentiments. Thus he weakens his foundation in religious field and degrading himself. The Hindus, Muslims, Christians the biggest religious groups in the world are simply following the sentments which are left behind by their forefathers. They are not at all looking in to their religious scriptures. In this way he simply floats away beraft of commonsense which is the gift given by the God. He is not even availing one percent of his commonsense in religious field. As a result of which, he is losing his eternal life as well his physical life. He is forced himself to the instable and unrestful life. This kind of life appears in almost all the religious groups. But what more astonishing thing is that the people who are more close to their religious scripture the Bible are also leading the same life. They

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 11

really keep their scripture as I say closed to their hearts are also leading the life simply following the preachings of their pasters. They are giving more importance to their own feelings, manipulated lectures rather than tothe real teachings of Jesus. They are so deeply involved into such feelings as are unable to come out of that shell. Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read; no one of these shall fall, none shall want her mate; for my mouth ithath commanded, and his spirit it hath gatheed them.

Isaiah 34:16 ‘Seak ye uot of the book’ is the command of God. But nobody in the christian community observes the scripture. They have left the ‘observation’ and gone away from this ‘observation’ to far-off distances. They are simply following the manipulated and misconceptual beliefs. Who is ‘That Prophet’ in the Bible? If you ask any christian, no one is in a position to give appropriate and carrect answer. This shows their lack of knowledge in the Bible. As the church system is leading the life in the darkness ignoring the scriptural knowledge as propounded by Jesus it canbe rest assured that Mr Ahmad Ali’s book ‘That Prophet’ will dispel the darkness around and full the loght of guidance. I happened to study his other books such as ‘Is Atonement is the Salvation’, ‘Isaiah - 53’, ‘My findings from Gita conform with Qur’an’ and ‘The Profile of Paul’ where in I have noticed his unbissed way of argument, minute observation in bringing out the fact and the discreat abilityin discriminating right from wrong and uncompromising attitude in estableshing the scriptural facts are his abnormal famous of God apert from his normal singh way of presenting his arguments to as

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 12

readers can easily understand. While I was reading his books, the quotations he cited to support his arguments rather confounded me and to make sure whether they were really the biblical verses or not I referred the Bible on many occasions this under on his diligent comparision of scriptural quotations in support of hisarguments which leads the reader into a sort of doubt, “can this bethe saying of Bible?” I indeed bapotize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with tire; Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughtly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

-Matthew

3:11-12 If you ask who said these words and about whom. A newly acting paster and experienced reverend answer you, that John said these words about Jesus. But you will surprise when you come to know these words were not really told by John basing on the arguments made by the author. When the readers come to know taht this was not told by John, they get into perplexity as to who had told this other than John and about whom- are the inquisitive questions that desply disturb the readers. Basing on the scriptural facts, in the examplary and logical way the arguments presented by the author proved irrafutable that this prophecy stated by Jesus himself which point is the most commendable. Then the final question comes into the minds ofreaders- “Jesus prophesied! well. Abot whom?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 13

The answer for this... is the outcome of deep insight study of The Bible basing on logic and reaserch process- that is about ‘That Prophet’. Then who this ‘That Prophet’ had been? Thearguments made in thisbook right from the beginning to the end- basing on thescriptural facts with logic and reasoning are full of excitement and are interesting which disclose the person of ‘thatprophet’. The readers with broad open mind and unbiased state of mind who read with the enthusiastic intention to know the fact- can very easily understand that who this ‘That Prophet’ had been. Before I conclude my preface I pray the God let Mr Ahmed Ali begiven strength and courage to write about religious realities and make the innocent people to intalligent. So that the different communities attain religious equality.

Md. Usman Ali BashaB.AB.ed Head Master Darul Huda Public School Shah saheb Street,Kakinada

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 14

Introduction Religion speaks frequently about God, Holy Spirit, Prophets, Revelation, Angels, Heaven and Hell, and life after death. These are all such matters as no human mind can easily accept, as they are incomprehensible and inconceivable things. Without devine guidance it is too improbable for man to believe. So God has appointed his prophets as guides to mankind. They (prophets) also cannot disclose this mystery unless they are informed by God through Holy Spirit, who has been appointed for the purpose. The Hindu scriptures describe as Param + Atma (Parmatma) while Muslim scriptures as Rooh+Quddus (Ruh-al-Quddus) which all mean to carry the same meaning. These are not his proper names in different scriptures but epithets which show his supremacy among all spirits (Angels or Devatas) in different languages. God sends His message to the prophets through Holy Spirit in human form which act is known as incarnation. But most often he (Holy Spirit) directly descends on the hearts of the prophets and reveals the message what he brings from God. This act is known as Revelation. A. And the spirit of the Lord fell upon me and said unto me speak: Thus saith the Lord... -(Bible) Ezekiel 11:5 B. Moreover he [Holy Spirit] said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart and hear with thine ears. And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God... -Ezekiel 3:10-11 C. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -II Peter 1:21 A. Though I am unborn of imperishable nature and though Iam the Lord of all beings yet ruling over my own nature I do incarnate (Sambhavami or srujami) by my own maya. -Geeta 4:6

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 15

B. Whenever there is decay of religion, O Bharata, and ascendancy of irreligion, then I manifest myself. -Geeta 4:7 (What for?) C. ... for the firm establishment of religion I do appear in every age. -Geeta 4:8 A. And verily this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Spirit (Atma) faithful to the trust has descended with it on thy heart that thou mayest be of the warners in plain and clear Arabic tongue. And it is surely (mentioned) in the scriptures of the former peoples. -Qur’an 26:192-196 B. That is surely the word (brought) by noble Messenger [Holy Spirit]; and it is not the word of a poet, little is it that you believe. Nor is it the word of a soothsayer; little is it that you heed. It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. -Qur’an 69:40-43 C. Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth in order to strengthen those who believe and as a glad tidings for Muslims. -Qur’an 16:102 Thus God sends His message through His holy Spirit (Param Atma) to His oppointed prophets who in turn convey the message to the respective people to whom they belong. A. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets... -(Bible) II Peter 3:2 B. ... which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. -(Bible) Acts 3:21 C. And the Lord hath sent unto you all His servants the prophets rising early and sending them : but ye have not hearkened nor inclined your ear to hear. -(Bible)

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Jermiah 25:4 A. Even as we have sent to you a Messenger from among yourselves who recites our signs to you and purifies you, and teaches you the book and wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know. -Qur’an 2:151 B. And we sent messengers whom we have already mentioned to thee and messengers whom we have not mentioned to thee - and God spoke to Moses particularly. -Qur’an 4:164 C. And indeed, we sent messengers before thee, and we gave them wives and children. And it is not possible for a messenger to bring a sign save by the command of God. For every term there is a devine decree. Qur’an 13:38 A. ... Even with a view to the protection of the masses thou shouldst perform karma -Geeta 3:20 B. Whatever a great man does, that alone the other man do, whatever he sets up as the standard, that the world follows -Gita 3:21 The principle elements of the religion have always been one and the same. All scriptures constitute the same message: worship of only one God, and following of the prophets: Do they seek a religion other than Allah’s while to Him submits whosoever is in the heavens and earth willingly or unwillingly and to Him shall they be returned?-Qur’an 3:83 I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God beside me: I have girded thee, though thou hast not known me.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 17

-(Bible) Isaiah 45:5 The main act of the prophet is that he should invite people towards God, and to make them worship the only God: for this purpose God has appointed a number of prophets who appeared in succession one after another. Some times He foretold about the advent of some succeeding ptophets by their preceding prophets. For example : We have many prophecies about the advent of Jesus. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. -Isaiah 7:14 So also a number of prophecies about the advent of prophet Mohammed have been mentioned in the Bible. A. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deuteronomy 18:18 B. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. -Deuteronomy 33:2 And many more which some of them have been discussed in this book. Jews have clear prophecies in their scriptures about the advent of Jesus the messiah. But what pitiable is that when he appeared, they disregarded him - while he came and established his mission and passed away. But what more surprising is, the Jews are still expecting for his advent. This is how the Jews could not recognize Jesus as a promised messiah and are still expecting for his advent. Christianity also followed

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 18

in the same footsteps of Jews in disregarding the promised “That prophet”. What all prophecies were made by other prophets regarding that prophet have been attributed to Jesus. And the prophecies made by Jesus, have been attributed to the person of Holy Ghost. The main task that I have undertaken in this book is- to focus upon the manipulations that how the church has endeavoured in attributing the prophecies made by other prophets about the advent of “That Prophet” to the person of Jesus- and what all prophecies that have been made by Jesus himself, to the person of the Holy Ghost. Thus the church caused a great deal of perversion in the christondom and it is too hard for one to come out of the clutches of the artifice made by church. Ahmed Ali Author

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 19

In the name of Creator

THAT PROPHET A PROPHECY I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire

-Matthew 3:11-12

The above verses obviously give rise of two important questions1. Who stated this ? 2. About whom this statement was made ? The context of the passage clearly provides the answer for the first question as John the Baptist to have stated this, but the answer for the second, neither has been incorporated in this gospel nor in the successive two gospels Mark and Luke; but we have a clear mention of the same in the gospel of John as to have been said about Jesus. Thus we read John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 20

after me is preferred before me, whose shoeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s latchet, I am not wothry to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said after me cometh a man which is perferred before me, for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him, ; And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the son of God.

-John 1:26-34

Thus it is made clear that the prophecy as recorded in Matthew 3:11-12 has been proclaimed by John the baptist about Jesus and this is the unconfounded belief of every Christian too. When we arrive at the answers as above, there comes another logical yet pertinent question, whether the particular passage under discussion is a prophecy or not. To know this no documentary evidence is required as the passage itself is self explanatory to prove this, as nothing, but a prophecy. Meaning of Prophecy The literal meaning of prophecy is to foretell. Foretelling itself implies that something is foretold before its occurrence(i.e) to be taken place only in future at any time. No doubt that the word future covers all the time to come from the next moment of its utterance unless specification of time is made such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;after a day or a year or a century etc.â&#x20AC;? But when a prophecy about one to

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 21

come after him is made that itself prove that it is not said about the one that is already existing of his own time, but of one to come at any time only after him. The same thing is also corroborated in the prophecy itself saying as “...he that cometh after me...” Not prophesied by John - nor about Jesus However this logic leads to doubt whether the record of the Gospel of John under Ref: John 1:26-34 is authentic? If it were really said by John the baptist about Jesus, as is the contention of Church, Jesus should have appeared only after John or atleast should have started his mission only after the days of John, because the prophecy lays down emphasis on the point that he was to come after him. But Jesus was the contemporary of John and both of them were performing their ministries separately in the same period. And therefore it does not appear absurd if any one declares that the prophecy was neither prophesied by John nor was it the person of Jesus about whom it was prophesied. John baptized Jesus Though it is contraray to the prophecy, for argument’s sake let us for a while agree with the contention of the church that this prophecy had been prophesied by John himself in connection with Jesus. If it were so .. A. in no way could John baptize Jesus - that too in water. And on the other hand he himself should have been baptized by Jesus in Holy Ghost. But quite contrary to this we read in Gospel that Jesus was baptized in water by John. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 22

fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Matthew 3:13-15

According to the intepretation of the Church in the light of this prophecy, John being the prophesying person (according to Church) he was incompetent even to bear the shoes of Jesus. If this be his derogatoy state, why Jesus took all the pains to come all the way from Galilee to Jordan where John was baptizing? Did he come there to baptize John in Holy Ghost? No-But he himself to be baptized of him in water. Had this really been prophesied by John about Jesus, John (according to prophecy) was incompetent even to bear the shoes of Jesus. But here Jesus came to John to be baptized of him and John baptized Jesus in water. If Jesus were the person to baptize in Holy Ghost why was he himself baptized in water that too by an undeserving person who was not even worthy of bearing his shoes? Does this singular act not hint us to conclude that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus? Adjustments made on mutual consent Just to erase this likely suspense and suspicion even from the minds of elite Christians, the Church tries to divert their minds to make them think that John was really to be baptized of Jesus by forwarding the conversation between John and Jesus as cited below. John says - “ I have need to be baptized of you” and enquires to Jesus - “Comest thou to me?” (Matthew 3:13-15) On any particular reason, Jesus might not have baptized John, which point however would not matter except of depriving him(John) of being baptized in Holy Ghost by a greater one. But what surprises one and matters adversely is -that Jesus himself was baptized by John. If the prophecy were about him(Jesus), could he ever have allowed such thing to be done? If John were the proph-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 23

esying person, could he ever have missed the opportunity of being baptized by Jesus in Holy Ghost for the remission of sins? And in reply Jesus says to John - “Suffer it to be so now.” (Matthew 3:13-15) According to Church he(Jesus) was sent to baptize in Holy Ghost. But as a matter of fact asks John the unworthy person (according to church) to baptize him in water. Were he really appointed to baptize in Holy Ghost could he ever have been baptized in water? Were they the real persons as one as prophesying one, and the other, one about whom this prophecy was made, as Church professes, could they have made adjustments in baptisms according to their mutual consent agreed upon, leaving aside the commandments of God in this respect? Baptism in water continued - still continues in the churches B. John should have desisted himself from giving baptism in water from the very next moment of Jesus’ appearance. And Jesus should have begun the procedure of giving baptism in Holy Ghost. Thus the procedure of giving baptism in water should have been replaced by the system of baptizing in Holy Ghost. None of the two points can positively be answered by the church. And on the other hand the system of baptizing people in water which Jesus adopted, has been in practice eversince. And again John did not join the company of Jesus - nor his disciples C. John in no way could have his independant mission along with his own disciples, but should have joined the company of Jesus (altogether) and become his disciples. Except two, no other disciple of John had joined the company of Jesus. And John had his own mission. 1. Again the next day after John stood and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 24

saith, behold the lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. -John 1:35-37 2. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast in to prison. Then there arose a question between some of Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disciples and the Jews about prurifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. -John 3:22-26 3. When therefore the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John... -John 4:1 4. Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples. -Matthew 11-2 5. And his (Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) disciples came and took up the body, and buried it and went and told Jesus. -Matthew 14:12 The above references clearly show that except the two no other disciple of John had joined the company of Jesus. And also tell us that both John and Jesus were performing their ministries separately at the same period. D. John had led his own separate mission with separate system of prayer. Thus we readAnd it came to pass that, as he was praying in a certain place,

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 25

when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

-Luke

11:1

If this had really been prophesied by John about Jesus, then why did not he allow his disciples to join the company of Jesus and why did he lead his own separate mission? These two points prove beyond doubt that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus. We are sure that Church has no proper answers for our questions which have been raised so far, except some irrelevant interpretations in the manner of escapism or in an apologetic way or in compromising attitude. The main reasons for our declaration that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus are as mentioned below. No doubt that John had baptized people in water. Yet it does not give sanction to the claim of Church that John had prophesied this and that about Jesus only, until it is made known that Jesus had baptized people in Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact that all the prophets from the times of Abraham to John and Jesus had been in know about the advent of a greater prophet of sure of this prophecy; and all had also prophesied about that prophet1. And likewise John too might have prophesied. But those prophecies of John have not been recorded in the Gospels. As regards to other prophets and their prophecies about the advent of that prophet, some prophecies have been incorporated in other books of the Bible but many were lost or might have wantonly been excluded. Now what our argument is that this prophecy under discussion is not the one that had been prophesied by John about Jesus. Even if it is admitted that it had been prophesied by John himself the prophecy does not in any way attract (apply) to the person of Jesus. And in support of our claim we

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 26

would like to illuminate on the following more important points in addition to what so far have been discussed.

NOT PROPHESIED BY JOHN His enquiry dampens the contention of church Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

Matthew 11:2-3

At the outset this enquiry of John to Jesus, whether he (Jesus) was he, that was to come or that they should look for another disproves the passage under reference John 1:26-342. And what more evidence is required to rebut the Church and to prove that this passage is a mere interpolated part subsequently added in the Gospel John by the Church to justify the main prophecy under discussion relating to the person of Jesus himself? Yet let us examine other reasons too. 1. John’s enquiry to Jesus whether he was he that was to come, unveils the hidden fact, that John, as we said above, was in know that one was yet to come. 2. John had sent his disciples to Jesus to enquire whether he was he that was to come, only after hearing the works done by Jesus. That means those tremendous works of Jesus made him think that Jesus might be that one who was to come, and this infers that he who was to come must be a greater one. This point is also corroborated in the main prophecy saying as “He that cometh after me is mightier than I.” 3. “ Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?” This enquiry of John about Jesus, undoutedly proves that though John already was in know about the advent of that prophet, the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 27

correct person and the definite time of his advent was not in his knowledge. 4. And this question of John also provides a marvelous record proving the historical fact that until the time of Jesus, that promised one, the prophet of this prophecy about whom the person of John himself was in expectation of , had not appeared. 5. And also infers that until that time, John regarded Jesus, only as an ordinary prophet like himself, but not as a greater one who was to come.

John enquired from prison-until then Jesus was regarded as an equal prophet to himself In the light of these points, one can easily imagine the confounded state and uncertain opinion of John about Jesus. If this had been the state, we would like to ask the Church that, how can it ascribe the prophecy which has been made so explicitly pin pointing about one to come, to have been said by John relating to Jesus himself? And another reason isJesus did not give any direct answer to the question of John. For argumentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sake for a while let us agree that Jesus had answered John saying that he himself was he who was to come. The readers are requested to bear in mind that John had sent this question from prison, wherefrom having not been released and while yet in the prison itself he had been beheaded by Herod the then ruler. If this be the fate of John, we would like to question the Church, that where was the chance for John to come before the people and declare pointing Jesus, saying as - â&#x20AC;&#x153; Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 28

I said, after me cometh a man etc?â&#x20AC;? (John 1:26-34) Before imprisonment? The Church may try to defend this by saying that this was proclaimed by John, even before his imprisonment. Such explanations rather deprive the Church of getting any strong hold on this issue, because until the time that John had sent his enquiry from prison, he had not at all regarded Jesus himself as one mightier that was to come. If this be the fact about his uncertain opinion about Jesus until the time of his enquiry from prison, how can Church make one believe that this prophecy and proclamation under John 1:26-34 were made by John even before his imprisonment? Our further discussions in connection with the attitude of John towards Jesus will also help readers to understand our argument more clearly. John never declared about Jesus - neither before imprisonment nor after - a strong point to rebut the claim of the church The summary of our arguments made so far to rebut the contention of Church and to prove that this was not prophesied by John relating to Jesus is as follows:The prophecy is obvious to have been prophesied by one with definite knowledge and with decisive opinion beyond any doubt. But the opinion of John about Jesus was indecisive and indefinite and not beyond doubt, and he had no definite knowledge about the person who was yet to come. So John was not the prophesying person. If this be the confounded state and indecisive opinion of John about Jesus, how can this prophecy which had been said by one so vehemently and decisively with definite knowledge and firm opinion, be attributed to have been said by John himself? (and that too about Jesus?) Prior to imprisonment, John regarded Jesus only as an equiva-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 29

lent prophet to himself and was curiously expecting for a greater one to come. And therefore he could in no way have proclaimed this prophecy relating to Jesus. And after questioning Jesus from prison whether Jesus himself was one that was to come (even if it is agreed that Jesus had answered in positive) he had no chance to come out of the prison to declare this before people, as he had been beheaded even while yet in the prison. These two points evidently prove that John had never prophesied this either before his imprisonment or after or at any time during his term of life. When once it is agreed and proved that this was not prophesied by John, the passages, records, verses whatever are found in Gospels showing this prophecy to have been stated by John relating to the person of Jesus, can be regarded as mere interpolations made subsequently to justify their presumptive interpretation. Our arguments made so far proved that this was not prophesied by John. Thus the first point of the Church has been rebutted. Then who prophesied this and about whom? -is the curious question which needs a careful examination.

BIBLE STUDY - REVEALS If we make a careful and deep study of the Bible, keeping in mind the necessary qualifications and qualities specifically mentioned in the prophecy about one who was yet to come, it will be made crystal clear that this prophecy was not made by John relating to the person of Jesus who was his contemporary but by Jesus himself about one to come after him (i.e) the comforter : Now let us examine the Biblical records relevant to the point, to find out the correct person that had prophesied and that about whom it had been prophesied.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 30

Analytical study of the prophecy reveals the following points 1. He who prophesied this had been baptizing with water; and he that was to come after him, was to baptize in Holy Ghost... that means he would not give baptism in water, as the prophecy makes this point clear saying as “ I indeed baptize you with water .... he shall baptize you with Holy Ghost.”

2. He about whom this prophecy was made should come only after him by whom this prophecy was made; because the verse clearly points out to this fact saying as “ He that cometh after me.” Therefore he about whom this prophecy was made should come only after him that prophesied but in no way should either be a former one or a contemporary. 3. He who was to come should be greater and mightier than him who prophesied, because the prophecy illuminates on this fact saying as “But he that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” 4. The promised one must have his fan in his hand. Fan means a thing useful to separate the chaff and the wheat. Here the fan is figuratively used for law, which discriminates the righteous and the sinners just as a fan separates the chaff and wheat. That means the promised one, of the prophecy should be a law giver. The attention of the readers is invited to note that we are trying to find out that who was the person that had prophesied this prophecy under discussion and about whom. It is an open fact that Church argues that this was prophesied by John about Jesus, because it is so written in the Gospel of St. John. But our arguments made so far proved that it was not John who prophesied this. Then by whom was it prophesied and about whom, are the points which can be discussed later; but prior to this let us see whether this prophey in any way applicable to Jesus as is presumed and con-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 31

tended by the Church. The first point we have arrived at from the prophecy is that one who prophesied this was baptizing in water .... and one who was to come after him, as proclaimed by himself should baptize in Holy Ghost. And according to this, if the contention of the Church and the narrations of the Gospel in effect to this issue were true, Jesus should have baptized people in Holy Spirit only. But not in any thing else. Jesus baptized - but in what? Now let us see whether Jesus had ever baptized in Holy Spirit. Read the following passages:a. After these things, came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea: and there he tarried with them, and baptized. -John 3:22 b. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. John 3:26-27 c. When therefore the Lord Knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John... -John 4:1 The aforesaid three references of Gospel John give undeniable proof that Jesus had baptized people, yet it has not been clearly mentioned whether he baptized in water or in Holy Spirit. So let us now find out in which of the two he had baptized.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 32

Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence -Acts 1:4-5

The above passage reveals the following points : A. Jesus commanded 1. That they (disciples) should not depart from Jerusalem, 2. that they should wait for the promise of the Father (God) B. Promise 1. The promise was made by God. 2. “Ye heard of me...” means conveyed through Jesus. In other words “As has been prophesied by me (Jesus). 3. What is that promise? -Baptism in Holy Ghost. C. Baptism 1. John baptized in water. 2. You (people) shall be baptized in Holy Ghost. D. Time 1. “Not many days hence...” means in near future. Now let us discuss all the above points one after another. A reminder of original prophecy The above passage is nothing but a reminder of the original prophecy under duscussion in an another form. (The original prophecy can be seen in Matthew 3:11-12) The following are the main points of the original prophecy. 1. I indeed baptize you with water. 2. But he that cometh after me, shall baptize you with Holy Ghost. Examine carefully the reminder as cited in Acts 1:4-5 under discussion.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 33

Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for the promise of God (Acts 1:4-5). 1Q. What is that promise ? Ans. “Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost.” 2Q. When ? Ans. “Not many days hence” (means in near future). 3Q. Was this promise made by God directly to the people? Ans. No-But “Ye heard of me” means “Conveyed by me (Jesus) to you” or in other words, “I(Jesus) prophesied you.” Note : The above passage was stated by Jesus at the time of his departure from the world. 4Q. What do the words such as “Ye shall be baptized in Holy Ghost in near future (Not many days hence) spoken at the time of one’s own departure from the world -mean to ? Ans. Mean to say in clear terms as - “Ye shall be baptized in Holy Ghost AFTER ME”. The following are the answers reproduced as arrived at from the above questioneer. I (Jesus) prophesied - Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost ---After me ---And again We must bear in mind that Jesus had baptized people only in water. These points are discussed and proved in our coming pages basing on scriptural facts. Then therefore it would not be unreasonable if “I(Jesus) baptized you in water.” -is also added to the above points. Then therefore the points come as follows. I (Jesus) prophesied -I (Jesus) baptized you in water - Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost --- After me---

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 34

Now recollect the important points as recorded in original prophecy under discussion (Matthew 3:11-12). “I indeed baptize you with water. But he that cometh after me,baptize You in Holy Ghost.” A diligent examination of the above points as arrived from the reminder (Acts 1:4-5) and the points specifically mentioned in the prophecy under discussion as recorded (in Matthew 3:11,12) reveals the fact that these two - is one and the same prophecy while the former one is a reminder and the latter - the original prophecy. The only difference between these two is, one is in passive voice while the other is in Active voice respectively. Thus it has been proved beyond doubt that the original prophecy had been prophesied by Jesus himself. In this way the whole mystery is vanished and it is made clear that Jesus himself had prophesied about his successor who would come after him, and that who would baptize in Holy Spirit. Let us see in another way also. The original prophecy is in Active voice. I indeed baptize you with water. But he that cometh after me baptizeth in Holy Ghost. (Matthew 3:11,12)

The subject ‘I’ mentioned above is attributed to the person of John by the Church (John 1:26-34). But our arguments proved that it was not prophesied by John. Then therefore the subject ‘I’ of the above verse inevitably and invariably stands for Jesus himself. In this way it is clearly proved that this prophecy had been made by Jesus himself and at the time of his departure had once again been reminded. Yet let us discuss in more detailed way. One can easily understand from the passage Acts 1:4-5 that Jesus had commanded his disciples in his last meeting before his

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 35

departure from the world, that they should wait to receive the promise of God conveyed through him. The promise of God is explained in the passage itself which reads as â&#x20AC;&#x153;But ye shall be baptized in Holy Spirit not many days hence.â&#x20AC;? This evidently proves that Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit. If he had ever baptized in Holy Spirit, he would not have assured his disciples that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit in the following near future after his departure . By whom they would be baptized is not clearly recorded. Yet it is not at all a mystery which remains undisclosed. But if the discerning readers pay a little more attention, they can understand that they(disciples)1 would be baptized in Holy Spirit by him who was entrusted to baptize people in Holy Spirit -the greater one who was to come after him as according to the prophecy. But not by Jesus himself. Jesus - a forerunner of That Prophet Thus Jesus had not only made it clear that the people upto his time had not been baptized in Holy Spirit, but also admitted that he was not the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit and also assured the advent of the greater prophet in the following near future after his departure, whose advent was promised to all the prophets and their followers from the times of Abraham to John and of himself. In clear terms Jesus had prophesied of That Prophet who was to baptize in Holy Spirit after him. Thus Jesus was conferred with the favour of being a forerunner of the greater one to come which point we shall discuss more clearly in pages to come. Baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus-after glorification - only hypothesis But Church will not refrain from its vain attempts to establish its claim even after so many points which have been brought into lime light such as these. It further goes to the extent to explain that Jesus had showered his Holy Spirit only after he was glori-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 36

fied. In the terminology of Church the word â&#x20AC;&#x153;GLORIFICATIONâ&#x20AC;? stands for the death of Jesus on cross and his burial and stay for 3days and 3nights in the tomb and his resurrection and then ascention to heavens. Christian exponents inevitably admit that it is true that Jesus had not baptized in Holy Spirit until after his ascention to heavens, only at the time when they come across so many such points as have been discussed so far. Yet contend that after he was glorified, he poured down the Holy Spirit on them who believed in him, basing on the following verses. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. -John 7:37 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

-John 7:38

(But this he spake of the spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: For the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified).

-John 7:39

The readers are requested to note that how ridiculous and irrelevant is the (verse 39) to the context of the verses (37&38). It may be the opinion of the Gospel writer, which might have been noted in the footnote, but ultimately has crept into the text and taken the status of an independant verse though it is inserted in the brackets. It may be either the opinion of the gospel writer or the interpolated part added by the Church subsequently to suit their invented doctrine that the baptizing in Holy Spirit by Jesus came into effect only after his ascention or whatever, we are not going to

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 37

touch this point here to avoid confusion of the readers. Well for the argumentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sake let us admit that Jesus, after he was glorified (after ascention) had poured down the Holy Ghost and thus he had baptized people in Holy Spirit. Now what the most remarkable point is, that if Jesus were the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit and if it were true that though not in his lifetime, but after his ascention Jesus had baptized people in Holy Spirit, as is the speculation of the Church, we would like to remind the Church once again the record of the Gospel of John under Ref: (1) 3:22, (2) 3:26,27 (3) 4:1 in which it is evidently proved that Jesus had baptized people even before his glorification and would like to enquire whether he baptized in water or Holy Spirit. If it is agreed that he had baptized in Holy Spirit after his glorification then in what did he baptize before his glorification? Must be in water but not in Holy Spirit. Now again we like to ask the reason of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; baptizing people in water (which point will be proved later in more convincing manner,) prior to baptizing in Holy Spirit. Was it necessary that one who was to baptize in Holy Spirit must baptize first in water and then in Holy Spirit? Is it anywhere mentioned in the original prophecy that he who was to baptize in Holy Spirit should first baptize in water and then in Holy Spirit? No, not at all. But on the other hand the prophecy contradicts this type of double and compartmental baptism. And moreover according to prophecy the procedure of baptizing in Holy Spirit is termed as higher and greater qualification. If Jesus were the one who was really to baptize in Holy Spirit, what necessitated him to baptize in water? The Church may say that he was not given Holy Spirit as he was not yet glorified. Does prophecy admit that he would baptize in Holy Spirit after his glorification? No. Then can any sane person appreciate such explanation? Is this point not enough to disqualify the claim of the Church that Jesus himself the one who was to baptize in Holy Spirit?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 38

INSTABLE STAND OF CHURCH As a matter of fact Jesus too like John, had baptized people in water as had been ordained by God (John 3:26-27). Here, the Church rather enter into perplexity as to what should be the reply for these questions. Yet with gratitude for the farsightedness of the forefathers who have provided the Gospels with positive as well as negative replies for their timely use, the Christian preachers, just in the manner of escapism forward the following verse and proudly say that Jesus had never baptized people before his ascention. “When therefore the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (John 4:1) “Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,” (John 4:2) “He left Judea and departed again into Galilee.”(John 4:3)

However, such explanations may please the so-called lay Christians who without scriptural knowledge blindly follow the finger signs of the Church; but sounds ridiculous to the discerning readers. Please examine the above two verses. They are not only self contradictory but also ridiculous. The first verse says that Jesus baptized more disciples than John. This verse clearly says that Jesus had baptized. Unless Jesus had baptized any one, how could one had become his disciple? The very existence of disciples is the proof that Jesus had baptized them. In the second verse, it is stated that not Jesus, but his disciples had baptized. How could the disciples baptize people without the leave of their master? And how could they adopt the procedure of baptizing independant of their own accord without the consent and mode other than what had been shown by their master? They could baptize only with the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 39

permission of their master and follow the procedure shown by him only. When the master had granted permission to his disciples to baptize, explaining the mode of it; such baptism even by the disciples can be termed, as though it was by the master himself. In this way also the fact remains that Jesus had baptized people. Thus we have rebutted the explanation of Church that Jesus had never baptized any one before his ascention. Now we would like to invite our readers towards the verses of Act 1:4-5 under discussion. In this we find the promise of God, through Jesus about the baptism in Holy Spirit which was to be given â&#x20AC;&#x153;in near futureâ&#x20AC;? after his departure. (Please examine the verses -Act 1:4-5) Jesus commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of God ...

Jesus commanded them 1. That they should not depart from Jerusalem, 2. And that they should wait for the promise of God (Baptisim in Holy Spirit). An attempt for diversion The first part of the command of Jesus that they should not depart from Jerusalem is seeming to be interpolation made by Church just with an idea to divert the minds of the Gospel readers from the real command that they should wait for the promise of God; and thus to lower down its primary importance; and to make them believe that the fulfilment of the promise of God took place while the desciples were yet in Jerusalem as had been commanded by Jesus and thus not to allow them to go insearch of or wait for the real promise of God which was, as a matter of fact, yet to be accomplished.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 40

If what we have presumed, were not correct and true, we would like to know from the Church whether receiving of promise of God (Baptism in Holy Spirit) is confined and restricted to the municipal limits of Jerusalem only, so as to command that they should not depart from Jerusalem? If Church agrees that baptism in Holy Spirit was to be given by some person that would come from Jerusalem, then there would have been some meaning in commanding that they should not depart from Jerusalem. But Church says that Holy Spirit is an invisible thing like sound and wind1 which Jesus sends from heavens on those who believe on him. In such case it should not be restricted to the jurisdiction of Jerusalem but must be open for every part of the globe as the believers are found in any part. Therefore we can conclusively say that the first part of the verse in which it is stated, â&#x20AC;&#x153;That they should not depart from Jerusalemâ&#x20AC;? is only the interpolated part on the reason and grounds discussed above. Or that they should agree that the descent of Holy Spirit is restricted to the Municipal limits of Jerusalem only, which deprives the people of all other places. Whatever be the fate of Jerusalem, but one thing is sure, that is, Jesus had commanded them that they should wait to receive the promise of God. What is that promise ? Another attempt to mislead For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit ...

1. For John truly baptized with water... 2. Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit...

Of course, it is an admitted fact which cannot be refuted. John had been sent by God to baptize people and accordingly he had

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 41

discharged his duty. And what about Jesus? Had he not ever baptized people? Yes, Jesus had baptized people and thus he too had discharged his duty as had been ordained by God. Read what Bible says about this... And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. -John 3:26-27

The above verses convincingly say that Jesus had baptized people, and that John had also admitted before people that the act of Jesus’ baptizing people as the favour of God conferred upon him. And therefore this is an authentic record proving Jesus to have already fulfilled his act of baptizing people. If this be the fact of Jesus’ having baptized people what more can be the above part of the verse which reads as - “ For John truly baptized with water...” so incorporated in the verse as to have been stated by Jesus at the time of his conveying the message of the promise of God about the baptism in Holy Spirit which was to be given in near future after his departure, than one which is purely intended to pervert to mean as Jesus to have said, that they were baptized by John with water and that they would be baptized by Jesus himself in Holy Spirit and to garb over the fact of Jesus having already baptized people with water once for all? May God forbid; how can we think that such a prophet of God could ever have tried to conceal his baptizing people in water with mere vague and vain words such as “John truly baptized with water” as though he had never baptized any one? When he had so clearly conveyed the promise of God about the advent of his suc-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 42

cessor who was to baptize in Holy Spirit, how could he have concealed his own baptizing people in water? No, he could never. But he might have told them in clear terms that he had baptized them in water; but that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit by his successor in near future after him. And this was actually what he meant for â&#x20AC;&#x153;But wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.â&#x20AC;? Then, therefore the verse might have originally been to read as ... For I truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized in Holy Spirit not many days hence.

In other way When once it is agreed and proved that Jesus had baptized in water during his lifetime, we would like to ask the Church that what wrong is there if the verse under discussion to be read as ... For I truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized in Holy Spirit not many days hence?

Now let us examine in an another way.

JESUS HIMSELF ADMITTED If Jesus were the person himself to baptize people in Holy Ghost, though not in his life term, but after his glorification, it is clear that the main act of Jesus was still due to be accomplished yet; if this be the case, could he ever have admitted before God that he had completed the work entrusted to him, even before the completion of giving baptism in Holy Ghost? No- Not at all. Thus we read ....I have finished the work which thou (God) gavest me to do. John 17:4

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 43

Does this only verse not enough to prove that Jesus had discharged his entrusted work? Does this not prove that he had left nothing in pending to be accomplished later by himself? And does this point not disprove the claim of Church that Jesus would baptize in Holy Spirit after his glorification? And again we have a clear evidence from Gospel John, in conformity with the above, that Jesus to have fulfilled his entrusted Job, the act of baptizing the people. This point has been discussed in our previous pages. In the passage of John 3:26,27 John also confirmed that baptizing people was the favour of God conferred upon Jesus. This point most evidently proves that Jesus had left nothing in pending to be accomplished later. What all he was entrusted with, to do, that he had finished completely. Then therefore awaiting for the baptism in Holy Spirit to be given by him is an act of ignorance. In a situation such as this, does the command of Jesus to his disciples that they should wait to receive the promise of God (that is baptism in Holy Spirit) which was conveyed through Jesus himself, not speak of the fact that Jesus himself had prophesied the original prophecy1 and reminded the same in an another form at the time of his departure from the world under reference Acts 1:4,5 ? Keeping in view of these two points (Viz.) ( I,) Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s confirmation about Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; baptizing people which had already been done while he was yet living, as a favour of God conferred upon Jesus (John 3:26,27) and (2) the admission of Jesus that he had fulfilled all his entrusted Job( John 17:4) can any wise person not admit the fact that whatever contradicts to the above decisive and firm admission of Jesus before God, as mere interpolations made by the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 44

Church to justify their persisting advocacy in ascribing this original prophecy to the person of Jesus? But Church never agrees to it. And as a matter of fact, if it agrees to it, then there is no argument at all. Whether one may agree or not, what the fact is, that Jesus, as has been explained earlier, had baptized people and at the time of departing from the world had commanded his disciples that they should wait to receive baptism in Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus had already fulfilled his act of baptizing people in water, for which he had been sent and clearly conveyed the promise of God about the advent of a greater prophet who would baptize people in Holy Spirit after him. Thus Jesus after having already baptized, assuring his disciples that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit, gives undeniable proof that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit, by one to come only after Jesus, but not by Jesus himself as Church contends.

BAPTISM ACCORDING TO CHURCH Here our readers must know what is meant by baptism. In christian terminology taking baptism means, one confessing his own sins with repentance before the prophet of ones own time and accepting the preachings and teachings of the Prophet. How do prophets baptize people ? They preach the path of God which leads to salvation, teach the righteousness and threaten with the evil consequences of sins and make the people repent over their sins. And when people turn towards them accepting their (prophetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) prophet - hood, they take allegiance from people that they should be loyal to God and to them and abide by the commandments of God given through them. This act is known as Baptism.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 45

We have a good reference of this in Bible. In those days came John the baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, And saying. Repent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand. --- Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the pharisees and sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of Vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. -Matthew 3:1-8

While baptizing, the prophets adopt the traditions as an external sign of baptism such as immersing into water etc. These external signs in baptism may some times vary from the tradition of one prophet to the other. Whatever may be these traditions, they have nothing to do with the real baptism, as they are only external signs which are useful for the identification of the successive prophet as prophesied by his preceding prophet. If this be the procedure of baptism, there appears no meaning in contending that Jesus would baptize them in Holy Spirit after his Death and Ascention.

IMPORTANT HINTS WHICH HELP TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION Now let us again come to the verse to find out the real interpretaion in another way - â&#x20AC;&#x153;... but ye shall be baptised in Holy Spirit not many days hence.â&#x20AC;? The above verse does not point out the unique person who would give baptism in Holy Spirit. And therefore the verse rendered susceptible of different interpretations.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 46

So Church according to its own doctrine, interprets that they would be baptized by Jesus himself after Ascention in the following near future. The points brought into lime light in connection with the baptism given by Jesus, give entirely a different interpretation to that of the Church. Our interpretation to the verse is he (the successor of Jesus comforter) would baptize them in Holy Spirit. These two interpretations appear to be correct when each examined separately. But when both are put for consideration together, each disagree with the other. And as a matter of fact two contradictory opinions can never agree and cannot be correct at the same time. Therefore to find out the correct interpretation of the verse under discussion, we would like to place here some important hints which help the readers to arrive at the correct interpretation. The original passage under reference Mattew 3:11,12 is a prophecy. It speaks of the advent of the one that would baptize in Holy Spirit after him that had prophesied, (grammatically it is forwarded in Active Voice). This passage under discussion (Acts 1:4,5) is also a prophecy. It also speaks of baptism in Holy Spirit to be given after him that had prophesied, (grammatically it is forwarded in Passive Voice). For ready reference - both prophecies mentioned as here under A. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 47

wheat unto the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. -Matthew 3:11,12 B. And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. -Acts 1:4-5 1. The main prophecy (A) promises of the advent of a greater prophet, whose external sign of baptism was to baptize in Holy Spirit. Here in the passage (B) Jesus too promises the baptism in Holy Spirit. This evidently proves that Jesus had given the glad tidings of the advent of the prophet who would baptize in Holy Spirit. That means he had repeated the same original prophecy once again in different form. 2. He who prophesied the main prophecy (A) was baptizing in water. This point emphatically proves that he who had once baptized in water, could in no way be the one that was to baptize in Holy Spirit. And therefore, as Jesus had already baptized in water, his conveyance of the promise of God(i.e) the baptism in Holy Spirit cannot be expected to be given by himself but by one who was to come after him. 3. John and Jesus were contemporaries who were performing their missions independantly with the followers of their own. The main prophecy(A) speaks of one to come after him that prophesied. Here in the passage (B)(Act 1:4-5) Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assurance that his followers would be baptized in Holy Spirit in near future after him, is a clear admission that the passage (B) is a repetition of the original prophecy in an another form. This point most reasonably discloses that the original prophecy was made by Jesus himself which was in an another form once again reminded

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 48

by his assurance in the passage (B). 4. John had baptized in water, and Jesus was also present in his time; yet ignoring Jesus, John’s expectation for one to come is a clear testimony that Jesus was not the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit and Jesus’ prophecy for baptism in Holy Spirit after him is its justification. 5. John’s enquiry to Jesus whether he [Jesus] was he that was to come or that they should look for another1; evidently proves that until the time of Jesus, the promised one, the greater one had not appeared . And the promise of God conveyed through Jesus to his disciples that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit in near future after his departure from the world 2 is self explanatory to the fact that the people would be baptized in Holy Spirit by a greater one to come. Keeping these two points in mind a perusal of original prophecy under discussion (A) will reveal the fact that the person about whom John was expecting was the same one by whom people would be baptized in Holy Spirit as had been conveyed by Jesus under (B). 6. Jesus too had baptized in water, and at the time of departing from the world, under the passage (B), giving glad tidings of the baptism in Holy Spirit after him is a clear admission of Jesus saying as “I indeed baptize you with water but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” Here the readers are requested to recollect once again the main prophecy which reads as ... “I indeed baptize you with water... but he shall baptize you in Holy Spirit” (A), and compare with the passage under discussion (B) which we substitute which has been arrived at after thorough examination1, as here under. For I truly baptize you with water but ye shall be baptized in Holy Spirit not many days hence...”

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 49

A close similarity between the original prophecy under discussion (A) and this promise of God conveyed through Jesus (B) is obvious; which evidently proves that Jesus was not the person who was to baptize people in Holy Spirit. And also points out to the fact that this assurance of Jesus (Acts 1:4-5) (B) is only a reminder in an another form of the original prophecy (Matthew 3:1112) (A) under discussion. So it may be noted that the original prophecy is logically proved to have been prophesied by Jesus himself, but not by John as is the contention of the Church. We hope that the points so far discussed, are enough to give a clear picture showing that there was one person a greater prophet to come after Jesus, who would baptize in Holy Spirit. All these points evidently prove that, as we interpret, Jesus had prophesied of the person to come after him, who would baptize in Holy Spirit, but not the Holy Spirit was to be given by Jesus himself as Church interprets. Arguments made so far reveal that the original prophecy (Matthew 3:11-12) under discussion was made by Jesus himself. And the same had once again been reminded by him at the time of his departure from the world (Acts 1:4-5). Patient attention of the readers -is invited. At the outset the original prophecy is ascribed by the Church, to have been prophesied by John. Examine the main points as recorded in the prophecy(Matthew 3:11,12) I indeed baptize you with water..... He that cometh after me baptize you in Holy Spirit.

This verse is constructed in active voice. ‘I’ of the first clause has been attributed to the person of John as the prophesying person. And the subject “He that cometh after” of the second clause

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 50

attributed to the person of Jesus to be the one about whom the prophecy was made. But our arguments made so far make it clear that it was not the person of John that had prophesied this. Then therefore ‘I’ stands for Jesus himself which speaks the fact that Jesus himself had prophesied this. If this be the fact the subject “He that cometh after” of the second clause can in no way be attributed to the person of Jesus; but inevitably stands for the one who was to come after Jesus. Now examine the reminder as stated in Acts 1:4-5 (Jesus said) “ .... but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

In our previous arguments we have proved the above as the reminder of the original prophecy. Yet let us discuss in an another way also. This verse is constructed in passive voice where the object (i.e) BY WHOM? (They would be baptized ) is omitted; the clue point which essentially be known to arrive at the real intepretation of the verse, which alone discloses subject (object of the passive voice - is the subject of the Active Voice, that is the doer) “ BY WHOM” they would be baptized, whether by Jesus as Church contends or by that prophet that was to come after Jesus as we interpret. There is no direct scriptural evidence in this passage to ascertain this object, nor anybody has any right to claim that the object imported by him is to be a truth, basing on one’s own mere predictions. Therefore under the circumstances such as these, we have to take into consideration ---1. Every other point whatever is connected with this issue. 2. The correct procedure of baptism prevalent in those days. 3. And whether the christian beliefs and contentions in this regard agree with their fulfilment.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 51

JESUS BAPTIZED IN WATER AND CHURCH VEILS IT Therefore, apart from so many points which have already been discussed, we would like to discuss some important points in this connection so that the readers may know how Church played its subtle part to hide the realities so that they can sucessfully attribute this prophecy to the person of Jesus himself. 1. At the first instance, Church tried to conceal the baptism given by Jesus in water. This proclamation of ours may appear peculiar to our readers on one hand, as earlier to this, the verses from Bible showing the baptism given by Jesus have been quoted by us (under references from Bible -John 3:22, John 3:26-27 and John 4:1) which are self evident to prove that we have admitted that Church is not hiding the fact of the baptism given by Jesus as we accused (said) above. And on the other hand, the same verses are useful to Church to defend themselves and to rebut our above proclamation as mere defamation. Yes, it so appears to the cursory readers of the Bible. But if we probe in to the matter, the subtle attempts that how the Church made by producing contradictory verses to suit its doctrines according to its convenience can be proved. In this regard I would like to state that during my arguments held with priests and fathers etc., whenever they found no chance to defend any more they simply said “ we human beings cannot understand Bible” (then for whom is Bible sent God alone knows). Some said “You could not understand Bible”. Some others said “Bible is two edged sharp sword”. And some other scholars of the Bible said, “Bible has two sides (facets) ” and suggested “please see the other side also”. Let us not bother about such vain explanations which obviously show their escapism.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 52

THE POINT OF CONCEALMENT COMES ONLY WHEN ATTEMPTS ARE MADE TO HIDE ANYTHING WHICH ACTUALLY HAD HAPPENED. IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED NO QUESTION OF HIDING COMES; NOR NEED FOR ATTEMPTS TO HIDE BECOMES INEVITABLE

Jesus as we said, had baptized people and it has also been clearly recorded in the Bible. But subsequent innovations of the Church rather yielded them not only to make slight alterations in the original text, but also to add interpolations to divert the minds of its readers towards their innovated doctrines, and to make them think that Jesus was the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit, and that before to this type of baptism, he had baptized none in any other medium; or to make them think that he had baptized none until after his ascention, or at least to keep them in confounded state in this regard. Church tries its best to explain that baptism was given only by his disciples, but not by Jesus. 1. In the Gospels wherever the point of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; giving baptism to people comes, in such verses nowhere it is specifically pointed out whether he baptized in water or in Holy Spirit. The verse under argument in which Jesus prophesied of the baptism in Holy Spirit to be given in the following near future after his departure itself is an authentic record to prove that he had never baptized people in Holy Spirit. And the verses quoted by us prove not only that Jesus had baptized but also infer that he might have baptized them in water (or any other thing-but not in Holy Spirit). In these verses not mentioning in what medium he had baptized is a clear witness that Church wilfully concealed the facts. Baptism given by Jesus ascribed to have been given by his disciples 2. And the Church did not stop its vain attempts to hide the bap-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 53

tism given by Jesus even at this point, but went so far as to declare that Jesus had never baptized any one, by adding one interpolated verse which reads as here underThough Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.

-John 4:2

The above verse inserted in such a place, where the verses are clearly showing the fact of Jesus’ baptizing people, so as to create a misconception in the minds of Bible readers which fact is not a difficult point for the readers to understand that how Church is trying its best to conceal the baptism given by Jesus. Please note, the above verse has been discussed earlier in our sub-heading “ instable stand of Church” in pages 19-20 which may once again be recollected so that the matter can easily be perceived. One who baptized in water cannot be one that baptizes in Holy Spirit A doubt may creep in the minds of our readers that what is the secret behind hiding the baptism given by Jesus and that why Church is so serious and particular about the concealment of Jesus’ giving baptism, while he was yet in the world. The reason is very clear - that is, that the prophet who had once baptized in water or any other thing except that of Holy Spirit, had no right to claim that he himself was one who was to baptize in Holy Spirit according to the main prophecy under discussion, as the prophecy itself stresses on this point saying as “ I indeed baptize you in water, but he that cometh after me shall baptize you in Holy Spirit.” Another specimen that shows how church tried to pervert from the real teachings of Jesus And to garb over these facts, the Church has created one more clause which has been used to mean that Jesus had baptized them in Holy Spirit which has been discussed below.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 54

3. The following is another specimen which shows clearly that how Church tampered with the text of Bible to suit its innovated false opinion that Jesus himself was the person who had baptized in Holy Spirit, and that how Church tried to conceal the baptism already given by Jesus in water and that how it tried to pervert wherever the command of Jesus to receive the one who was to baptize in Holy Spirit is made. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost

-John 20:22

This is one of the best examples, as we said earliar, that how Church exhibited its subtlety in perverting the minds of Gospel readers from its real message, at every such point where a direct and clear prophecy is made in connection with the advent of that prophet. As a matter of fact these are the words spoken by Jesus making a stress on his prophecy about the advent of that prophet who would baptize in Holy Spirit which he made clear saying as “Receive ye the Holy Ghost meaning, reject not that prophet” who would Baptize in Holy Spirit. But by adding an additional clause (i.e) “by breathing on them” the real spirit of the prophecy has been curtailed on one hand, and a new thought that Jesus had baptized them in the Holy Ghost by breathing on them has been created on the other. This is to impress upon lay christians that Jesus had already baptized in Holy Spirit or at least to keep them in perplexity. Is it our hypothesis? or accusation? not at all. Does the above verse not imply that Jesus had baptized them in Holy Spirit, by breathing on them? Well this is one facet of the coin; while the other facet speaks that he was never given Holy Spirit (John 7:39) until after his glorification. Thus we read in John.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 55

For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not glorified.

-John 7:39

Thus one interpolation (John 20:22) is contradicted by another interpolation (John 7:39)1. The points so far discussed evidently prove that Jesus had baptized but not in the Holy Spirit. And his assurance of baptism in Holy Spirit which was to be given in the following near future after his departure, was not meant to be given by himself as the Church contends but was to be given by his successor(i.e) the comforter as we interpret. If Jesus was not the person that had baptized in Holy Spirit, we would like to ask the Church that how can this prophecy under discussion be ascribed to the person of Jesus?

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF BAPTISM IN HOLY SPIRIT BY JESUS AS SPECULATED BY CHURCH-A CONJECTURE Despite so many points, the Church pays no heed to accept the truth and instead it advocates the accomplishment of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; giving baptism in Holy Spirit as their final authority, showing the following passage as their last resort. we read in Acts 2:1-4 And when the day of pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance.

-Acts 2:1-4

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 56

The above passage gives an account that how the disciples of Jesus who were all in one place received the Holy Ghost. It came from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind with great sound. It appeared like cloven tongues as of fire which sat upon each of them and thus they were filled with the Holy Ghost. As soon as it so happened they all began to speak with other tongues. But what sounds ridiculous is, the interpretation of the Church to this passage as to be the baptism in the Holy Spirit given by Jesus, showing the main reason as stated in the above passage that the Holy Ghost came and sat upon them. It is a mere conjecture of the Church. Conjecture is always a conjecture which avails naught against the truth. Holy Spirit sat upon disciples - a main criterion for baptism in Holy Spirit as described by church If the Church blindly or wantonly twist the above sitting (coming upon) of the Holy Spirit on them, as the baptism in Holy Spirit given by Jesus after his glorification, I would like to quote some passages from the Bible to propound the discerning readers and to judge themselves that how far the Church is justified in interpreting the above passage as the baptism in Holy Spirit given by Jesus. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, see; I have called by name, Bazeleel the son of Uri the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; And I have filled him with the spirit of God1 in wisdom and in understanding... -Exodus 31:1-3 2. And Saul sent messengers to take David; and when they saw the company of prophets prophesying and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the spirit of God was upon the messengers of soul and they also prophesied. And when it was told saul, he sent other messengers and they prophesied likewise. And Saul

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 57

sent messengers again the third time and they prophesied also. Then went he also to Ramah and came to a great well that is in Sechu; and he asked and said, where are Saul and David? And he went thither to Najoth in Ramah, and the spirit of God was upon him also and he went on and prophesied until he came to Jahoth in Ramah. -1 Samuel 19:20-21 The aforesaid are two specimen among many which can be quoted from the Bible showing that the people of thousands of years ago even before the birth of Jesus had Holy Ghost upon them. Some humours that prick the church If the Church interpret the event of coming of the Holy Ghost on the disciples of Jesus on the pentecost as baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus, what would it interpret the above passages? Were all those people on whom there was Holy Ghost, baptised in Holy Spirit? If so by whom? And what more ridiculous is that, whom the Church brands as he that was to baptize in Holy Spirit (i.e) Jesus, on him too the Holy Spirit descended and remained (Matthew 3:16). Then does it mean that Jesus too was one that had been baptized in Holy Spirit? If it were so by whom? And if sitting or descent of the Holy Ghost on the disciples of Jesus on the pentecost eve were to be really baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus as is the interpretation of the Church, and if Jesus himself were the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit, how could those people on whom there desended the Holy Ghost were baptized in Holy Spirit even before the birth of Jesus? If Holy Spirit were to be given after the glorification of Jesus, (John 7:39) how this Holy Spirit leaked from heaven even before the birth of Jesus?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 58

According to Church, Jesus was incarnate of God, or one of the triune gods, who had ever been present. So, as a reply to the above, the Church may not hesitate to say that they might have been baptized by Jesus himself even before to his coming in human flesh. Even if it is agreed, the vain explanation does not stand to the test of reason because, according to Church Jesus could baptize in Holy Spirit only after his glorification. â&#x20AC;&#x153; ...For the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glori-

(John 7:39). As regards to this verse, we have expressed our opinion in pages, 17`18. Even if we take it into consideration it avails no use to the Church, as it emphasises on the point that Jesus could baptize in Holy Spirit only after his glorification. In christian terminology glorification of Jesus means -Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; death on cross, his burial, resurrection after three days and ascention to heavens. Unless these four acts are accomplished, Jesus in no way be entitled to baptize in Holy Spirit. Therefore the church cannot establish that those on whom there descended Holy Spirit even before the birth of Jesus, were baptized by Jesus, even on the plea that he was ever present being godpart in trinity. Again we read as follows -

fiedâ&#x20AC;?

John bare record saying, I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon him [Jesus]. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost1. -John 1:32-33

In the above passage we find a crucial identification (criterion) of the person that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit, as the same one on whom the Holy Spirit descended and remained1.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 59

If it were so, why cannot we regard all those people on whom the Holy Spirit descended, as ones that were to baptize in the Holy Spirit of this prophecy? Does church agree to this? Of course not. Then why special option only to Jesus be given excluding all those on whom the Holy Spirit had descended equally as it had been in case of Jesus? Do these above two points not clearly prove that descending of Holy Spirit on any one, is not at all a qualification of the one that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit of the prophecy, nor descending of it means to say that it is baptism in the Holy Spirit by Jesus as is the speculation of the church? Then who this Holy Ghost was who descended upon all the prophets and what actually the baptism in Holy Spirit meant, we have discussed in another book entitled “My Findings From Gita - Conform with Qur’an”. Again we read For he [John the baptist] shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink, and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb. -Luke 1:15

When Zacharias was being promised of a son [John the baptist] by the angel of God, the qualities of the son he was going to be blessed with as glad tidings, have been mentioned in the above passage. Though it is not recorded any where in the Gospels, it does not appear unreasonable to interpret that John had Holy Spirit upon him until his death as it entered right from his mother’s womb. But the case of Jesus was quite different. He received the Holy Ghost only after he was baptized by John in water. If this be the misfortune of Jesus, who was a premier to bap-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 60

tize people in the Holy Spirit, with distinction and primary identification of remaining of the Holy Ghost upon him as an important qualification of the one that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit (John 1:32-33), then what about John the baptist on whom the Holy Spirit descended even from the time he entered his mother’s womb and remained until his death? Does this point not clearly and emphatically prove that the Holy Spirit which had been descending upto the times of Jesus and his disciples was a person or a thing or a gift, or a blessing of God quite different from that of him who was to baptize in Holy Spirit about whom Jesus prophesied? And does it not mean that baptising in the Holy Spirit was or is a procedure other than what the church is speculating about the event of pentecost as the baptism in Holy Spirit? And again we read And it came to pass that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary the babe [John the baptist] leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

-Luke 1:41

The above passage explains that the mother of Jesus went to meet Elisabeth the mother of John and saluted her. No sooner did Elisabeth hear the salutation of Mary, than the unfledged lump [foetus] of six months John leaped in his mother’s womb. We would like to ask the church, that what was the purpose that made leap the lump [Foetus-John] in the womb. Was it because it happened to see or hear miraculously while yet in the womb, Mary the mother of Jesus of 1st. month’s conception out of reverence to the clot [Foetus]of Jesus? well, what ever might be the reason, but his attitude towards Jesus when he happened to see him at his fully matured youth creates a deep surprise as to why he did not leap or even express his salutations. And on the other hand he baptized Jesus as he did to all other people with no exception.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 61

Now examine another passage (John 1:32-33) comparing with the passage under Ref: (Luke 2:25-26) 1. And behold there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him, And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Lordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Christ [Jesus]. -Luke 2:25-26 2. And John bear record saying, I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon him [Jesus]. And I Knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. -John 1:32-33 We learn from the above first passage that there was a man by name Simeon on whom there was Holy Ghost, and he was informed by the same Holy Ghost, that he should not see death until he had seen Jesus. And accordingly he happened to see the infant Jesus and took him into his arms and expressed his contentment and gratitude for having the prophecy of the Holy Ghost been given effect to. Whatever may be the interpretation of the church to this passage, what we primarily need is that Simeon had Holy Ghost upon him. And it revealed him that the advent of Jesus would take place even in his life time. Now examine the second passage. We find in it the narration of the Gospel writer, as John the baptist saying that he had been informed by God that upon whom he had seen the Holy Spirit descending and remaining the same was he that was to baptize in

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 62

the Holy Spirit. That is to say that God informed John, that Jesus himself was the person who was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Now what perturb the minds of our readers is that why did not the Holy Ghost which informed Simeon about the advent of Jesus, say any thing about Jesus to John. And why was it silent even though it remained on John even right from the day he entered the womb of his mother? In this passage we find John saying as, “I knew him [Jesus] not; but he [God] that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou [John] shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” This evidenly proves that until the time that John

was informed by God, he did not know any thing about Jesus. If this be the case there come some logical questions, that why did John leap while he was yet a six months lump [Foetus] in his mother’s womb, when his mother happened to meet the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:41) and that who informed him that she was the mother of the one that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. If he were then informed by his close associate the Holy Ghost, did he forget until he was again reminded by God? Leave aside all these things for some time. Some how or the other John was informed by God that Jesus himself was he that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Were this passage true and had John really been informed by God that Jesus himself was one that was to baptize in the Holy Spirit, that means the greater one who was to come after him, what was the reason for John in sending again his two disciples to Jesus to enquire if he were he that was to come or that they should look for another (Matthew 11:2-3)? Was there no belief and regrd in John in the word of God? Had Simeon acquired a greater place than John, in the sight of God, just believing the word of the Holy Ghost about the advent of Jesus? Was John insane, who despite a

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 63

clear sign of God, about Jesus, and yet with some doubt, sent his disciples to enquire Jesus? Did John regard the word of Jesus more than the God’s information? No- not at all. John was great in the sight of God and was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). And according to Jesus, no such a great prophet as John had ever been conceived of a woman (Luke 7:28). And therefore if the pasage (John 1:32-33) were true, John would have immediately recognized Jesus as one as had been informed, like Simeon had believed the Holy Ghost’s word, and would not have sent his disciples again to Jesus to enquire about him. Nor would he ever had expressed his doubt. This only point rules out both the passages under (reference Luke 1:41 and John 1:26-34). If this be the fate of some important passages which have been inserted in the Gospel, subsequently by the church only with a motive to justify this main prophecy under discussion to the person of Jesus, we would like to know from the church that how can it give an account of the authenticity of other Gospel records in support of their claim in this connection?

PENTECOST EVENT-NOT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF BAPTISM IN HOLY SPIRIT BY JESUS NOR THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY OF JOEL AS CHURCH SUPPOSES Now we once again request our readers to refer the passage under discussion (Acts 2:1-4) in which the disciples of Jesus are recorded to have been baptized in Holy Spirit by Jesus1, as we are going to discuss these points in an another aspect to prove that the event of pentecost was not at all the Baptism in Holy Spirit by

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 64

Jesus as church speculates and advocates. For the sudden and unnatural sound which was caused at the time of descending the Holy Ghost, the people of surroundings rushed to the place where the disciples were (Acts 2:1-2). And as they found them speaking in different languages, they surprised and some of them mocked at the desciples saying, “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:12-13). And again as we proceed on with the sequence of the sermon of Peter, as a reply to their mockery, we can find him justifying this event as no more than the fulfilment of the promise of the prophet Joel. Thus we read But Peter, standing up with the eleven lifted up his voice and said unto them, ye men of Judea and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hear unto my words: For these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.

(Acts

2:14:16)

The readers are requested to note that as has been proclaimed by Peter himself that this event of Pentecost to be the fulfilment of the prophecy of the prophet Joel, that one can say at the outset that it was not at all the Baptism in holy Spirit by Jesus, as has been speculated and advocated by church. The church may try to defend our above argument by saying as “ The fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy in the sense that Joel had prophesied that what was going to take place on the event of Pentecost by Jesus, and therefore it was the fulfilment of Jesus’ promise itself; and accomplishment of Baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus himself.” But this interpretation of the church does not seem to be apt according to the scriptures.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 65

Even if we agree with the explanation of the church as above to be a truth, a careful examination of the Joel’s prophecy (as narrated in the book of Joel 2:28-32 which is reproduced below for the ready reference of our readers) comparing with the pentecost event (as narrated in the book of Acts 2:1-16) under discussion explicitly points out very convincingly that it was neither the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy nor the accomplishment of the baptism in Holy Ghost by Jesus as is advocated by the church. None of the terms of the Joel’s prophecy agree with the presumed fulfilment ( Joel’s prophecy as narrated in the book of Joel 2:28-32 and repeated verbatim by Peter as mentioned in the book of Acts 2:1721) A careful examination is invited And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on my servants and on my hand maidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit and they shall prophesy; and I will shew wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come; and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

(Acts

2:17-21 and Joel 2:28-32)

Let us in the first instance find out whether the event of pentecost as proclaimed by Peter, is applicable to the prophet Joel’s prophecy, even if it is agreed that it had been said in connection with the accomplishment of baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus him-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 66

self. According to the main term of the prophecy, which reads as, “I will shew wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapour of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before that great and notable day of the Lord come ...” It is evident that the Joel’s prophecy is about the dooms day ... the last days of the world which the point is also corraborated in this prophecy itself which begins with ... “and it shall come to pass in the last days ... it is evidently proved that it was not prophesied about the event of pentecost as church supposes because according to the church the pentecost event took place in 1 year A.D (i.e) 2000 years ago (This was written in the year 1989) whereas the prophecy is about the coming last days (i.e) dooms day. Moreover not even one wonder has ever been shown or happened such as described in the prophecy on pentecost event. Here the church may try to defend by saying, that on the pentecost day there appeared the fire, showing the verse “ And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them (Acts 2:3).” But examination of the passage explains with authenticity that it was not the real fire. But it was the mighty sound which rushed like great wind and filled in the room; this mighty sound or wind appeared like cloven tongues as of fire (Acts 2:1-3). What logic admits is that what appeared like fire, cannot be the real fire. But it was only a sound or wind. Wind or sound appeared like fire... it is another absurdity. But what a fact is, that to the deluded eyes, everything appears as what they presume to be. And according to the second important term of the Joel’s prophecy, (in the last days) the spirit is to be poured upon all flesh (i.e) upon all people; but in the event of pentecost, only a handful of the disciples of Jesus who were in the room, are said to have

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 67

received the spirit. And according to the third important term of the Joel’s prophecy, (in the last days) all the people on whom the spirit will be poured shall have to see visions, dreams and shall have to prophesy. But contrary to these terms the disciples of Jesus were only speaking different languages. Keeping in mind the points above discussed, we request our discerning readers to judge themselves and find out if there is any consonance or connection or even slight resemblance to the pentecost event to that of the Joel’s prophecy as has been proclaimed by Peter. Bible the two edged sharp sword - a similitude for two tongued attitude of the church And what more humorous is that the same Peter who had proclaimed as above, just proceeding ahead in the continuation with his same sermon had again proclaimed deliberately that this pentecost event was the accomplishment of Baptism in Holy Ghost by Jesus. Thus we read Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted and having received of the Father [God] the promise of the Holy Ghost he [Jesus] hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. -Acts 2:33

Patient attention of the readers is invited towards the discrepancy in the proclamations of Peter in his sermon. In the self same sermon, Peter having already proclaimed that the event of Pentecost to be the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy, after proceeding ahead once again described this event to be the accomplishment of the baptism in Hoy Spirit by Jesus. The self contradiction in this ser-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 68

mon is obvious. Now the question is whether the above proclamations are true. And whether Peter could ever have given expression to such ambiguous statements in his sermon regarding to the important issue such as this. Or it is the outcome of the interference of church which is trying its best to justify this main prophecy to the person of Jesus himself leaving aside all the truths so far brought into lime light. We cannot suspect Peter to have given contradictory statements as regards to this issue, as he was the most important disciple of Jesus, on whom Jesus dreamt of buildig his church (Matthew 16:13-18). So we doubt that this Peter does not appear to be the original Peter - but the other person who was surnamed as Peter. A scrutiny of the accomplishment of baptism in Holy Spirit by Jesus on pentecost event as proclaimed - disqualifies the claim - Jesus had no share in it For argumentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sake let us not worry about the inconsistent statements as made above, but let us concede with the interpretation of the church that Joel had foretold what was going to be done by Jesus in the pentecost event. Thus the accomplishment of baptism in Holy Ghost by Jesus was given effect to on the pentecost event. Now let us see if there is any resemblance between the prophecy of Joel and the presumed accomplishment of the baptism in Holy Ghost by Jesus on pentecost event. In the prophecy of Joel it is stated that ... 1. God Himself would pour out of his spirit. And that too 2. upon all flesh. But in pentecost event, spirit was poured upon only on the disciples of Jesus but not on all flesh. And again, according to

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 69

Joel, the spirit was/is to be poured down by God Himself but not by Jesus. And therefore (if were the pentecost event a truth) the credit of baptizing in Holy Ghost, according to the prophecy of Joel, goes mainly to God and partly to Joel himself who had prophesied this even before Jesus, but in no way Jesus had any share in it. In this way the church is deprived of the claim as Jesus the person that was to baptize in Holy Ghost. And what has been speculated by the church as the baptisem in Holy Ghost is not at all a truth, but a conjecture and a myth. The arguments made so far make clear ... 1. that Jesus was not the person who was to baptize in Holy Ghost. 2. that Jesus had never baptized any one in Holy Ghost. 3. that accomplishment of baptism in Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost as presumed by church is proved to be a myth. 4. And that the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit was yet to appear, as has been assured by Jesus himself while departing from the world, as here under. ... but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

-Acts 1:5

BAPTISM COMMANDED BY JESUS Before his departure from the world, Jesus had commanded his disciples to baptize people. But it is not clearly mentioned whether to baptize in the Holy Spirit or in water. And the procedure and mode of it is also not explained for the obvious reasons as they were aware of it. So let us know the procedure adopted by the disciples in baptizing people after the departure of Jesus. This will help us to know the correct nature of baptism adopted by Jesus himself and as commanded to his disciples. And at the same time,

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 70

whether Jesus was the person to baptize in Holy Spirit can also be disclosed. St. Mark records in his gospel as, Jesus to have commanded his disciples in his last meeting as here under ... And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. -Mark 16:15-16

Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; command for baptism to be given-in Holy Spirit or in water? In the above command of Jesus, we find his stern warning that those that believe and are baptized shall be saved but those that believe not and are not baptized shall be damned. But the method of baptism is not explained in these verses. What I mean is that it is not clearly pointed out whether to baptize in water or in Holy Spirit. But to impress upon the minds as if it were meant for Baptism in Holy Spirit, a clarified statement to this effect can be seen from the record of St.Matthew which reads as here under though there is discrepancy between the two narrations ... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost... -Matthew 28:19

In this also the procdure of baptism is not mentioned. Let us recollect once again and bear in mind the following points so as to understand the further arguments. 1. Jesus had baptized people (John 3:22,26 and 27 and John 4:1). Though it is not recorded whether he baptized in water or Holy Spirit, the following point No.2 evidently proves that he did

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 71

not baptize them in Holy Spirit and the further arguments emphasize on the point that he had baptized them only in water. 2. While he was yet living (that means before to his departure) he did not baptize any one in Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit was not yet given to him as he was not yet glorified (John 7:39). 3. We have a clear evidence in the Gospels about the procedure of Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Baptism. He dipped people in water and baptized while he was yet living. So also if Jesus were the person to baptize in Holy Spirit he should have baptized the people only in his life time, just as John did, and thus should have accomplished his entrusted job of baptizing people in Holy Spirit. And what a pity to note is that he was not given Holy Spirit as long as he was living in this world1. He was not given Holy Spirit means, he was not the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t you agree with us? The Holy Spirit decended on every prophet including Jesus; Who this Holy Spirit is and what the Baptism in Holy Spirit means, we shall discuss else where. 4. And again what a notable point is that at the time of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; departure, he prophesied that his disciples would be baptized in Holy Spirit in a near future that was to follow after his departure1. Does this not prove that Jesus was not at all the one who was to baptize in Holy Spirit but had only prophesied about the advent of one who was really to baptize in Holy Spirit after his departure? 5. After his departure, in the pentecost event what the disciples speculated the descent of the Holy Ghost as to be the baptism in Holy Spirit, has been proved by us in the previous arguments as nothing but a myth and conjecture and the after thought development of the church to justify the main peophecy under dis-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 72

cussion to the person of Jesus himself. This point can also be seen in our following arguments. Now recollect the main term of the original prophecy2 under discussion... â&#x20AC;&#x153; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost...â&#x20AC;? and tally with the above points if they in any way agree in consideration with the baptism given by Jesus or with the commandment to his disciples. Please also compare with the following command of Jesus as narrated in Matthew. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.

-Matthew 28:19

For this the church defend and argue that Jesus had ordained his disciples to baptize in the name of Holy Ghost. To baptize in the name of Holy Ghost impress to mean that they should baptize in Holy Spirit. But this does not stand to the test of reason when observed in the procedure of baptism adopted by his disciples even after his glorification. Disciples baptized only in water even after glorification of Jesus and even after pentecost event - a clear testimony that what church speculates as baptism in Holy Spirit - a myth Please examine the following passage. And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself to his chariot. And Philip ran thither to him and heard him read the prophet Esaias

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 73

and said understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away; and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the Eunuch answered Philip and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; And the Eunuch said, see here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the lord caught away Philip, that the Eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing. -Acts 8:26-39

The above passage provides a short account that how the eunuch the treasurer of the Queen of Ethiopia, was baptized in water by Philip. Now a careful attention of the readers is invited. When the treasurer was fully convinced about Jesus, having reached to the place where there was water, he requested Philip that he should baptize him. Then both the treasurer and Philip got down of the chariot and went into the water wherein Philip baptized him.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 74

This passage very clearly shows that the treasurer was baptized by Philip only in water. There was no point of Holy Spirit in his baptism. Please note that the above event took place after the glorification of Jesus, and even after the pentecost event. Now what our question is, that if Jesus had really ordered his disciples to baptize people in the Holy Spirit, why did Philip baptize the treasurer of Ethiopia in the water? And again, if pentecost event was not a conjecture as we said, and if it were true baptism in Holy Spirit, why did not Philip baptize the treasurer in Holy Spirit and why did he baptize him only in water? This event points out the fact that the disciples of Jesus were baptizing the people only in water but not in the Holy Spirit. And does this point not provide a clear picture beyond doubt that Jesus had ordered his disciples to baptize people only in water even after his glorification as he did while baptizing people during his life time but not in Holy Spirit? And what more authority is required than the traditional practice of baptizing in water which has been coming right from the days of Jesus to this day which can be witnessed from any church? Does this only point which is self explanatory, not enough to conclude that Jesus never baptized any one in Holy Spirit nor has he ever ordered his disciples to baptize in Holy Spirit and also to prove that he had baptized only in water which practice is still continued in the churches? As we argue, the Holy Spirit which descended upto the times of Jesus and his disciples was something other than the one that was really to baptize in Holy Spirit - proved beyond doubt.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 75

Now I would like to forward another important passage basing on which one can conclusively prove that Jesus had baptized none in the Holy Spirit even after his glorification but as many as he baptized during his life term, --baptized them only in water. And while departing from the world he commanded his disciples to baptize people just in the same manner as he did(i.e) baptism in water. Because he was not the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit. Peter was explaining the gentiles (non Jews) who were not circumcised, about Jesus that how he did miracles and that how he was slain and hanged on the tree etc,. is the prelude of the following passage. (Please refer to Acts 10:44-48) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. -Acts 10:44 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter, because that on the gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. -Acts 10:45 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter.

-Acts 10:46

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

-Acts

10:47 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the lord [Jesus].

-Acts 10:48

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 76

The descent of Holy Spirit and remaining on any one is not baptism in Holy Spirit - disclosed A careful attention of the readers is invited towards the above passage. The verse No. 44 shows clearly that the Holy Ghost descended on those that had not yet believed nor been baptized (read together with the verse No. 47). The verse No. 45 unveils the possibility of the descent of the Holy Ghost even on the gentiles (nonbelievers). And it also clearly points out the fact that the descent of the Holy Ghost is not at all the baptism either in the name of the Holy Ghost himself nor in the name of Jesus; but it was only a gift which had ever been bestowed upon a number of people from the times immemorial to the time of this event. Because Peter baptized them with water even after receiving the Holy Ghost.(Read together with the verse No. 47). The descent of the Holy Ghost even on the nonbelievers, who were later baptized in water even after its descent, proves that it is in no way connected with the baptism in the Holy Spirit as church speculates. This point also proves that Jesus was in noway concerned with baptism in Holy Spirit of the main prophecy. Then answered Peter,--- can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of lord (Jesus)... -Acts 10:47-48

What the above verses mean to say is that Peter enquired (challenged) if there was any body who would not allow him to baptize in the name of Jesus (in water) to those that had received the Holy

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 77

Ghost as well as the disciples themselves. Does this singular act and event not sufficient to unveil the mystery wantonly or ignorantly created by church in which the entire christianity is groping in the darkness of hypothesis? Mystery vanished - claim of church rebutted In the above passage Peter placing the precedent of baptism as adopted by Jesus and his disciples brings out the fact that Jesus used to baptize people only in water. Further he illuminates on the point that the descent of the Holy Ghost is in noway connected with the baptism in Holy Spirit. If our arguments and interpretations of the various verses on the topic of baptism are not true, we would like to ask the church that why did Peter use water in baptizing people on whom the Holy Ghost had already fell as equally as on the disciples themselves? If Jesus himself were the person who was to baptize in Holy Spirit, though not in his life time, but after his glorification, what necessary of water was there for Peter to baptize people in the name of Jesus, even after the glorification of Jesus, and even after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost? What our contention is that Jesus used to baptize people in water and at the time of his departure, he commanded his disciples that they should continue his mission by preaching and baptizing the people in water in the same manner as he did, until the time of the advent of a greater prophet of this main prophecy who would baptize people in Holy Spirit.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 78

Baptism in water is still continued in churches-a strong point to refute the false notion of the church as regards to the issue of baptism But this prophecy of Jesus about “That Prophet” hurled the church in the gloom of perplexity. Jews have prophecies about the advent of Jesus the Messiah in their Torah (Old Testament). But they outrightly rejected him when he manifested and are still expecting for his advent. Exactly in the case of ‘ THAT PROPHET’ the christians rejected him when he appeared. All prophecies of Torah and other prophets and Gospels about him have been misinterpreted and ascribed to the person of Jesus himself so that they might/may ignore him (That Prophet) for ever. In manipulating these, the church has left no effort ineffective. It has, at the outset made people believe that this prophecy had been prophesied by John about the person of Jesus and secondly it has successfully incorporated the interpolations, here and there in the gospels justifying the gift of the Holy Ghost as the baptism in Holy Ghost by Jesus. But our comprehensive arguments in this regard unravelled the articulations of the church. And their persistent struggle is dampened. If what we say is incorrect and if the claim of the church were true in this regard, we would like to ask the church repeatedly that why had the early disciples of Jesus even after receiving the Holy Ghost, used to baptize people only in water? and why the church is still practising the same procedure of baptizing people only in water? Can church deny these facts? or can it rebut our proclamations? So far we have discussed the first point of the original main prophecy that he who was to baptize people in Holy Spirit should not baptize in water or in any other thing except in the Holy Spirit.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 79

And our arguments made so far proved beyond doubt that Jesus had baptized people only in water and commanded his disciples, after his departure, that they should comply with same procedure in baptizing people, the procedure of which is still being adopted in the churches. Therefore this prophecy about the advent of one greater prophet, who according to the prophecy, would baptize in the Holy Spirit, in noway can be attributed to the person of Jesus himself as church advocates, nor can be accepted to have been prophesied by John as church contends. Further more, a careful examination and understanding of our arguments made so far, can provide an authentic and undeniable inspiration showing that this prophecy had been made by Jesus himself in connection to the advent of his successor, which point can be dealt with in detail in our further arguments. Now let us examine the 2nd point of the prophecy...

ACCORDING TO PROPHECY, THE PERSON ABOUT WHOM PROPHESIED, SHOULD APPEAR ONLY AFTER THE PROPHESYING PERSON We wish to remind our readers that we are discussing the prophecy as has been recorded in the Gospel of Matthew under Ref. 3:11-12 which may kindly be recollected once again so that the arguments can easily be perceived. The contention of the church in this regard is that this prophecy has been foretold by John the baptist in connection with the advent of Jesus. But according to the second important term of the prophecy (that is our second point), the one about whom this prophecy was

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 80

made should appear only after him that had prophesied this, because the verse emphatically holds a strong stress on the point saying as â&#x20AC;&#x153; He that cometh after me...â&#x20AC;? This point very clearly proves that the promised one must not either be a predecessor or be a contemporary but should appear only after him that had prophesied. John and Jesus were contemporaries - a known fact to church Therefore to find out whether the contention of the church is true, we have to examine the existing periods of both John and Jesus. According to Gospel, Jesus was a contemporary of John. Thus we read : And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John in Jordan.

-Mark

1:9

Both were of same age Not only that Jesus was the contemporary of John, but those two were of the same age though John was older of six months than Jesus (Luke 1:8-44). And behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son [John] in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary [Mother of Jesus] said, behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. -Luke 1:36-38

The angel who appeared before Mary with a promise of a child [Jesus] says that Elisabeth the mother of John was having the conception of six months. (To understand more clearly please

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 81

read Luke 1:5-38). The church is not unaware of these facts, yet what exclaims one is, their vain attempts to attribute this second main term of the prophecy (That is ‘He that cometh after me...’) to the person of Jesus, who was already present, as to have been prophesied by John, who was not only his contemporary but also the person of his same age. Keeping in view of the context of the prophecy under discussion the words such as ‘He that cometh after me...’ should not be used regarding the person who is already present which fact is known to any man with minimum literary knowledge. And therefore the person about whom it is prophesied as ‘He that cometh after me’ should appear only after the departure of the prophesying person. In some cases, the departure of the prophesying person is not necessary But in some occasions, the usage of such words (i.e) ‘He that cometh after me’ need not necessarily be to mean as that he should appear only after the departure of the prophesying person, but it does not make any difference even if he be the existing person of his own time; and rather it becomes some times imperative. In the situations such as these confounded matters, we cannot arrive at the correct interpretation unless we minutely examine the narrations of the proclamations made, mainly depending on the context and sequence and taking into consideration the relevant events as well if necessary.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 82

THE THREE MAIN CATEGORIES OF THE EVENTS GENERALLY MENTIONED IN FORETELLINGS I would like to divide such events into three main categories as here under... 1. Time - Factor 2. Age - Factor 3. Period - Factor Time Factor In this category, one may say something about another one, who may come just after him saying as ‘He that cometh after me...’ in case of which the words ‘cometh after me’ simply speak of the succeeding time of the same period and of the same occasion as shown in the following example. Example :- A meeting was being conducted. A large gathering of audience was present. A man was speaking on the dais. And all the audience were curiously listening to his lecture. The speaker said, ‘He that cometh after me... (will explain the matter in detail). In the situation such as this, keeping in view of the context, he that was promised need not necessarily come only after the departure (death) of the prophesying person as is in the case of the original prophecy, but may be present on the dais1 awaiting for his chance or may come at any time just a while before or after the completion of the first speech, so that, as has been introduced, he can deliver his consecutive speech in more comprehensive manner than the one that already spoke.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 83

First three gospels try to maintain the claim basing on time factor - but of no use So under the phenomenon of this time factor, the church takes advantage of the narrations in this connection as recorded in the first three Gospels, where this prophecy happened to be recorded, and try to maintain that this has been prophesied by John relating to Jesus, who as a matter of fact, happened to go there coincidentally. Church describes this event as the accomplishment of the prophecy in the person of Jesus, pleading that, while baptizing people, John declared saying as --- â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;He that cometh after me is greater than I, who will baptize you in the Holy Ghost, just as in the same manner as the first speaker introduced his successive speaker as narrated in the above example. And accordingly Jesus happened to be there after this declaration was made. So â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;He that cometh after meâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is applicable to Jesus only, they contend -- so let us examine how far is it true. Now once again turn towards our above example. The audience as had been introduced were curiously expecting for the second speaker. Meanwhile a man entered the auditorium and carefully listened to the lecture of the first speaker and went out like all others did. Now what we like to ask is that can anybody claim that the man who entered the auditorium and listened the lecture like all the audience and went away quietly to be the one as the second speaker as introduced by the first speaker? No, not at all. Why because, the man did not go to the dais, and give the lecture in more comprehensive manner as had been introduced but on the other hand like all the other listners he too listened the first speech and went away. Just in the same manner as related in the above example, while John was baptizing in water Jesus came to him to be baptized of him in water like all other people and accordingly he was baptized

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 84

by John in water and then he went away. Even if we take the time factor as illustrated above to be granted, the contention of the church dampens as Jesus did not baptize any one in Holy Spirit during his life time and on the other hand he himself was baptized in water by John and furthermore he imitated John’s procedure of baptizing people in water which points were discussed in detail in our previous arguments. In this regard the fate of Jesus is no more than the man who, as related in our illustration, entered the auditorium and listened the speech of the first speaker and went away, in whose case it is meaningless to say that he himself was the second speaker. So is the case with Jesus too. Though it is admitted for time being that it was prophesied by John himself, the prophecy in noway can be attributed to the person of Jesus, but to some one else who was to come after both John and Jesus. John never expected Jesus would come to him.Disproves the claim of church Now let us discuss in an another way : Basing on this phenomenon of time factor, as Jesus did not baptize any one in Holy Ghost, we have rebutted the claim of church and proved that this prophecy could not have been prophesied by John and that too about Jesus. Even if we agree that Jesus had poured down the Holy Ghost after his glorification as he was not given the Holy Ghost in his life time-as such the act of Jesus’ pouring down Holy Ghost after his glorification takes the secondary importance, while, as according to the prophecy even his advent (i.e) at least his appearance, just a while after, at the place where John was baptizing is the most essential thing which cannot be evaded under any plea: is not it? Don’t you agree with this? And this point that is Jesus’ appearance after when John had already begun to baptize, as recorded in

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 85

Matthew 3:1-15, let us agree with the church for a while for argument’s sake. Now what we would like to ask the church is if it were true -1. That John had prophesied this, and 2. that about Jesus only, who happened to come to him after when he had begun to baptize, could John have ever enquired Jesus that why he had went there. Does this enquiry of John not contradict the very purpose of Jesus’ arrival there, if the claim of the church were true? John says and enquires Jesus as follows : ... I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? Matthew 3:14

The above enquiry of John to Jesus reveals the following points -1. “... I have need to be baptized of thee...” (Matthew 3:14) to mean as saying, “I am intending to come over to you to be baptized of you.” If this be the intention of John, where is the question of his expectation for Jesus’ arrival there so as to attribute this prophecy to the person of Jesus keeping in view of the time factor phenomenon even? 2. “... Comest thou to me?” -Matthew 3:14 The above clause may be interrogative or exclamatory or whatever, -most emphatically brings out the fact that John had no idea and expectation at all about Jesus’ arrival there. If this be the fact, that how can church justify itself... 1. in claiming this prophecy to have been foretold by John who

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 86

had not at all expected the arrival of Jesus there, and 2. in attributing this prophecy to the person of Jesus who happened to go there to be baptized of John? Do all these facts not enough to rebut the claim of church even in keeping this time factor phenomenon? A. Did John ever expect that Jesus would come to him so as to establish the accomplishment of this prophecy in the person of Jesus even in consideration with this time factor phenomenon? No -He surprised when he saw Jesus coming to him and enquired ‘Comest thou to me?’ (Matthew 3:14) B. Did Jesus come there to baptize any one or even to John? No - He went there to be baptized by John himself (Matthew 3:14). C. Did John ever expect to be baptized of Jesus in Holy Ghost? No -Jesus was not at all given the Holy Ghost during his life time (John 7:39). Then the desire of John which he expressed before Jesus saying as ‘... I have need to be baptized of thee...’ to be baptized in what? Not in Holy Ghost. Then? 1. Had this prophecy been foretold by John, and 2. were it true that the term of the prophecy ‘He that cometh after me’ is applicable to Jesus who was the contemporary of the prophesying person (if it were John) under any plea, and 3. were John really expecting for the arrival of the person ( if it were Jesus) just after his commencement of baptizing people, to show him to the people pointing and saying as ‘Behold the lamb of God...This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man ...etc (John 1:29-30)’

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 87

... we would like to ask the church that could ever John had enquired Jesus saying as --- ‘Comest thou to me?’ Age factor In this category a prophecy can be made about one’s own contemporary which does not cortradict to the main principle of the prophecy. But if such prophecy begins with words such as “ He that cometh after me ...” should be made before the birth of the one about whom the prophecy is made. Otherwise the prophecy does not apply for his contemporary but speaks of some one to come after him. Example : As soon as the doors were opened a student entered into his class room and shouted.. “He that cometh after me (is the one that gets 1st rank)” aiming at and expecting for a particular boy. In the above case, the boy who first entered the class room declared about the one that comes after him as the one that gets the 1st rank. Thus he can proclaim only even before to the entry of any other student while he was yet present in the class room. This example can be well applicable for the age factor. In this case entering into the class room connotes for taking birth into the world. And entering earlier and later signifies to the age difference between the two of the original prophecy. As a matter of fact, in the event such as this, according to the context both the students the one who first entered the class room and the other who afterwards (later) enters must be contemporaries and may be of same age (may be with little difference) just as in the case of John and Jesus, which does not contradict; provided the first boy proclaimed immediately after his entry even before the other one entered the class room.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 88

But what noteworthy is the second boy should follow the first boy and the earlier one must make the above proclamation immediately after his entry into the class room or even just a while before to the entry of the later one, so that his proclamation may come true in case of the later one if it were really meant for him. But contrary to this if the first boy kept quiet until after the entry of the second boy who happened to enter the class room just after six seconds and then if any one of them or both of them proclaim that he that cometh after me..., the prophecy does not in any way applicable to either of the boys who were already present in the class room but obviously speaks of one that comes after both of them. In the literal aspect also it does not mean to have been proclaimed by the earlier student, as no proclamation was made until after the entry of the later one into the class room. In the situation such as this, the proclamation made for one already present, if it were really meant for him alone, it should have actually been spoken to read as “ He that is PRESENT with me...” or ... “He that CAME afte me...” But not as “He that COMETH after me ...” which speaks of the future tense only but not of the present perfect or present continuous tense. Church avails no chance to justify their claim even by means of age facter This is exactly the fate of the narrations of the Gospel too, with vain attempts to attribute this prophecy to the person of Jesus. Unlike the first three, the gospel John presents the phenomenon of the age factor. We know that John was six months older than Jesus. That means John came into the world six moths earlier than Jesus. Had John declared immediately after his birth (miraculously) or at least even a day before to the birth of Jesus saying as, “He that cometh after me” just like the boy who entered the class room of

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 89

the first phase of our above example, the words “He that cometh after me” would have, undoubtedly been applicable to Jesus who came into being after six moths, that too if no woman had ever given birth to any one before to Jesus. But contray to this, like the two students who entered the class room with a difference of six seconds of the second phase of our above example, John and Jesus (though there is a difference of age of six months between them) after attaining their full youth, and while performing their ministries separately at the same period declared (either one of them or both) as “He that cometh after me ...” Therefore this prophecy is applicable to neither John nor to Jesus but obviously speaks of some other person who was to come after both of them. So the church avails no opportunity of attributing this prophecy to the person of Jesus with a claim to have been prophesied by John even in consideration with the age factor. Or had it really been proclaimed by John about Jesus himself according to the reasons as discussed in the age factor, the verse should have been to read as “He that CAME after me” or “He that IS PRESENT with me” only but not “He that cometh after me.” Period Factor In this category a promise for one’s own successor after him can be seen. Unlike the above two, in this category, the successor should appear only after the departure of the predecessor, just as in the case of the original prophecy under discusion. Example : On the anniversary day, addressing to the staff and the students the Head Master said ... “ He that cometh afte me ...” (as your Head Master). In the above, the words ‘after me’ mean after my transfer or retirement which allegorically means the departure or death of the man who prophesies of his successor.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 90

Discretion left to readers Now consider the original prophecy under discussion in the light of the above three examples and find out to which of the three, the meaning of the words of the prophecy “that cometh after me” is aptly applicable to. If we concede with the arguments of the church taking for granted the time factor as has been recorded in the first three Gospels, if the contention of the church were true, Jesus, immediately after his appearance, should have baptized people in Holy Spirit proving the proclamation of John to be a truth in his(Jesus) favour. But no evidence can be obtained as such anywhere in the Gospels, which point rules out the false notion of the church that this prophecy has been made regarding the person of Jesus. Further our objection raised on this issue pointing on the attitude of John, who, when Jesus happened to come over there expressed his exclamation by asking Jesus ... “comest thou to me?” perturb the church, as this point rules out both the claims of church, under this phenomenon of time factor. Secondly if the age factor is taken to be granted, that John should have made this proclamation just immediately after his birth or atleast even a day before to the birth of Jesus. But we cannot find any documentary evidence to this effect1. Thirdly, to the great surprise of the church, John enquires to Jesus, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another (Matthew 11:2,3)” This enquiry of John to Jesus, dampens the pertinacious advocacy of the church in attributing this prophecy to the person of Jesus. Fourthly we have somany prophecies made by Jesus regarding the one who was to come after him which we shall discuss in other prophecies.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 91

All these points prove evidently that this was not the prophecy made by John relating to the person of Jesus, but by Jesus himself in connection with the person who was to come after Jesus.

CHURCH WANTONLY DOES NOT LOOK AT THE FACTS It is possible for a man who is errant in the desert to get water after striving hard. But it is improbable to get a drop of water for those who deluded the mirages to be the watery oceans. If any man deludes the rope to be a snake, in the darkness, and if the darkness is dispelled and ample light is focussed on the rope, his delusion vanishes. But if he wantonly does not like to look at and closes his eyes when light is focussed to make clear off his delusion, the delusive imaginarily transformed snake always remains as a snake but never appears in its real form of a rope as long as the man gropes in the darkness of his ignorance. This delusive snake does not cease to be with mere transformation, but the more the man deludes, the more it plays its role in making the man to think of it - as if it were moving etc.etc... and as if it were the real snake. Our arguments so far made, focuss ample light on the fact that the second term of the prophecy that he who was to baptize in Holy Spirit should come only after the one that had prophesied. Our readers are well aware the obstinate efforts of the church in proving and attributing the words â&#x20AC;&#x153;He that cometh after meâ&#x20AC;? to the person of Jesus who was the contemporary of John to whom the church claims as the prophesying person. In this regard their attempts to uphold their point they have taken up two methods. One is the time factor and the second is the age factor neither of which is in anyway useful to the church, the fact of which has been proved in our above arguments. As a matter of fact either of the points should have been taken into consideration, but we have ar-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 92

gued taking both the points (giving relaxation). Now the church is requested to forward if it can, the sufficient further grounds if any to rebut our claim that the one about whom this prophecy was made should appear only after the prophesying person but not the contemporary. Church forwards contradictory verses Yet one need not marvel to see the church in diverting its subtle arguments in an another aspect as their last resort to defend themseleves. They contend as follows As Jesus has started his ministry only after the imprisonment of John where from having not been released, he was beheaded, the words “He that cometh after me” are more pertinently applicable to Jesus only than any one else, the church contends. To uphold this argument it forwards the following verses from the Gospel of Mark. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and saying, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent Ye, and believe the Gospel.

-Mark 1:14-15

This passage provides some chance to the church to uphold their argument that, as according to the above narration, as Jesus had begun his ministry only after the days of John, the second term of the prophecy “ He that cometh after me” is applicable to Jesus. We too admit that if it were true that Jesus had really started his ministry only after the imprisonment of John. But what we have primarily to see is, whether the above pasage is free from interpolation subsequently made to support their argument as they did in so many passages which we have already discussed in our previous pages.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 93

To this effect read what St.John has to say in his Gospel- â&#x20AC;&#x153; After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized . For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him Rabbi, he, that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou bearest witness behold, the same [Jesus] baptizeth and all men come to him.

- John 3:22-26

The above passage provides the following points with authentic proof. 1. Jesus and John both were performing their ministries separately in the same period. 2. Jesus started his ministry even before to the imprisonment of John. This is another specimen that how church has provided the contradictory passages for their timely use. Now we leave this point to the discretion of the discerning readers, as well as to the church with a question that do these above two points not conclusively prove that Jesus had started his ministry even before to the imprisonment of John which point dampens even the last effort of the church which it has resorted to defend itself ? In the light of the above arguments, we would like to conclude that Jesus, being the contemporary of John, and having started his ministry even before John was imprisoned can in no way be justified to claim himself as one that was to come after the prophesying person if it were really John. Therefore the second term of

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 94

the prophecy also does not attract to the person of Jesus. So Jesus cannot be the person about whom this prophecy was made. There was some one to come after Jesus.

WAS JESUS REALLY GREATER THAN JOHN? According to the third term of the prophecy, he who was yet to come, should be greater and mightier than him who prophesied, as we find in the prophecy itself a stress having been made on this point saying as “... He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” Were the church not under the false impression that this prophecy had been prophesied by John about the person of Jesus, the defamatory and derogatory words to one’s own status, such as “ Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” would have wantonly been deleted by the church from the text or in case if they were not really recorded by the Gospel writer in his original manuscript, the church would have added these words in the text subsequently, just with an intent to exalt the person of Jesus as it regards this prophecy to have been made regarding the person of Jesus himself. Whatever may be the fact but what one can find is that these words are appearing in the text as an outcome of the presumption of the church that this was prophesied by John about Jesus. However, the examination of the personalities of both John and Jesus, as narrated in the Gospels helps a lot to find out the fact whether Jesus was really greater than John, so as to attribute this term of greatness to the person of Jesus as the church advocates, or was he an equavalent prophet to him(John) which fact deprives the church of its claim.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 95

Comparison between John and Jesus 1. John was a just man and an holy one(Mark 6:20). Similarly, Jesus too was a just and an holy man(Acts 3:14). 2. John had the hand of God with him means the grace of God was upon John (Luke 1:66). In the same way Jesus too had the grace of God with him(Luke 2:40). 3. John was great in the sight of God(Luke 1:15). Just like John, Jesus too was great in the sight of God(Luke 1:32). 4. The word of God (the message of God) came to John. Thus he became a messenger of God(John 1:33). Just as in the case of John, the preachings and teachings what Jesus gave to the people, was the message form God and thus he too became a messenger of God(John 7:16). 5. John was favoured with the gift of Baptism from above; That means God sent him to Baptize(Matthew 21:25-26). In the same way Jesus too received the power of Baptism from heaven(John 3:26-27). 6. John baptized people in water. Like wise Jesus too baptized people in water (it is an established fact from our arguments made so far). 7. John was sent from God(John 1:6). Similarly Jesus too was sent from God(John3:2). 8. John was a prophet of God(Luke 1:76). Just as John, Jesus too was a prophet of God(Matthew 21:11). 9. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Similarly Jesus too preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Read together Luke 5:3132 and Mark 16:15-16). 10. Jesus himself says that to get kingdom of God one should believe John also(Matthew 21:31-32). In the very same manner

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 96

one should believe Jesus also to get entry into the kingdom of God(Luke 12:8-9). 11. Jesus was a saviour of the world (people) (John 4:42). Similarly John too was a saviour of the world(people) (Matthew 3:57). 12. John was born by promise of God(Luke 1:13-20). Similarly Jesus too was born by promise of God(Luke 1:26-35). 13. John was named by the angel of God (Luke 1:13). Similarly Jesus too was named by the angel of God(Luke 1:31). John and Jesus were coequals The thirteen points as stated above prove with authenticity the equality of both John and Jesus in their respective personalities. In other words, in view of the above similarities, Jesus’ superiority over John in noway can be established however much more the church may struggle, as they both were coequals to each other in every respect in the light of the above thirteen points. In clear terms what we would like to say is, when Jesus is not proved to be greater and mightier than John himself, how can the church attribute this term of the prophecy (i.e) “ He that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” to the person of Jesus and that how can church interpret this main prophecy to have been prophesied by John himself relating to Jesus? A passage from Bible discussed-divinity ascribed to Jesus under this passage disproved But to uphold the superiority of Jesus over everybody the church advocates the doctrines of sonship - incarnation and ultimately ascribes divinity to Jesus, depending upon some passages of the Bible which points we shall discuss in detail and rebut basing on the scriptures, in our another tract under title “The person of Jesus - A prophet.”

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 97

Meanwhile let us examine only one passage out of them. Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God.

-John 20:28

These are the words expressed by Thomas with great exclamation, when he happened to see Jesus after his supposed resurrection, as a matter of fact which was a miraculous escape from death on cross1. Prior to this when he heard from other disciples of Jesus, that Jesus had been seen of them, and was alive he could not believe the words of the disciples and said to them that unless and until he saw Jesus with his own eyes and put his finger in to the nail prints of the palms and the side which was pierced with the spear that he could not believe, so as to ensure that he was the original Jesus. Thus he said because that every one thought that Jesus died on the cross and was buried. So the mystery of Jesus’ being alive and his appearance to other disciples in his absence became too improbable for Thomas to believe. But when Jesus appeared to him also, and asked him to examine the nail prints on his palms and believe him as Jesus himself(as he was not really dead as was supposed, but by the grace of God having been miraculously saved from the death on the cross)1 Thomas’ joy and surprise knew no bounds and shouted in great amazement saying as “My Lord, my God.” It goes without saying that if a man happens to see or hear the things that he never expected of, atonce remembers God and mechanically shouts saying as “O my God, O my God,” Then does it mean to say that what he unexpectedly witnesses which creates terror or pleasure or pain or sorrow as God himself, as he mechanically and openly shouts with words such as “ O my God and O my Lord”?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 98

The church takes advantage of such exclamatory words as discussed above and interpret that the disciples of Jesus had accepted and affirmed the divinity of Jesus. The divinity ascribed to Jesus by the church can be rebutted by the following two specimen verses from Bible which invite towards the oneness of God and disprove either duality or trinity. 1. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? -Psalms 89:6 2. To whom then will ye liken Me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy one -Isaiah 40:25 Miracles of Jesus - not at all useful to church to uphold superiority of Jesus The church also takes advantage of the miracles of Jesus to prove the superiority of Jesus over every one. Miracles were given to prophets just as a token to make people believe that they were real prophets of God. It is true that some prophets were not blessed with the power of working miracles; and some blessed with some miracles; and some others with many more miracles. Jesus was one among those that were given miracles or even more than any other prophet. John was a prophet with no miracles. Yet he was affirmed by Jesus himself as the greatest among the prophets that appeared until his time, which fact we shall bring to your notice in the coming pages. Does this point not prove that possesing of miracles is not at all a qualification which establishes oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own superiority over the other ?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 99

BIRTHS OF JOHN AND JESUS COMPARED The church advocates the miraculous birth of Jesus as the highest sign which qualifies and signifies superiority over all mankind. Therefore the greatness of the term of the prophecy applies only to the person of Jesus and thus his, is the case incomparably greater than anybody- it contends. Whether Jesus is the highest among all mankind is not pertinent in the present arguments, as we are, according to the prophecy and the interpretation of the church, trying to find out only whether Jesus was really greater than John himself. Here what we primarily need is the comparision between the births of John and Jesus, so as to know whether Jesus’ birth was really greater than John’s as church advocates. Conception - a process makes essential of the association of male (sperms) and female (ova) The association of female(ova) and male(sperms) is an essential and inevitable process without which conceiving becomes improbable and inconceivable matter. So in the process of conceiving, the part of both male and female has an equal share. Mary was a virgin - so birth of Jesus a miracle Jesus was conceived by a virgin named Mary. That means Jesus had no biological father and therefore no sperms of any man had ever passed into the womb of Mary. So Jesus’ birth was indeed a great miracle. John’s birth was also a miracle John’s birth was also as great a miracle as that of Jesus’. But the church regards not the birth of John as a miracle. prejudice does not make one bold enough to ponder over the facts. No doubt

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 100

- the birth of Jesus was a miraculous one; yet the birth of John is no less in spiritual importance than that of Jesus birth. This is how let us examine. Conception and some scientific points Menstruation starts in females when they attain puberty and continues until the age of 45-55.But in very rare cases it does not cease upto the age of 60 years. Menses comes once in every month in every healthy female. The period (duration) of which is seven days maximum. After menses (i.e) from the second week of menses, ova are released. When ova are associated with sperms (of male) there forms the foetus which phenomenon is known as conception. Between the age of 45-55 or at the most 60 years, menses ceases. Cessation of menses is called menopause. After attaining menopause no question of menstruation, and in cessation of menses no question of the release of ova from the overy and hence no question of conception at all. John’s birth a greater miracle that Jesus’ in the light of scientific facts According to Biblical narration the parents of John were well stricken in age. And more over the mother of John was a barren. Barren means unproductive or unfit for conception. Now come to the point of argument. Elisabeth the mother of John was not only barren but also attained menopause in whose case conception is not at all possible. And on the other hand as the father, Zacharias was well stricken in old age, was incompetent to have a sexual pleasure with his wife. Even if he could do some thing, in view of his old age, his sperms could not be expected to be of generative nature. Thus in the case of John’s birth both the parents were unfit for giving birth to a child. Yet God granted them John. Because nothing is impossible for God. But in the case of Jesus, though there was no association of male sperms with the ova of Mary, unlike Elisabeth, the mother of Jesus, Mary was a

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 101

young girl who attained to her puberty and thus she was capable with all her physical and natural faculties necessary for conception. In view of these facts one can find out whose birth is a greater miracle; whether Jesus’ or John’s. Barren and menopause or virgin - conceiving - a point of improbability - yet possible by means of miracle In our above argument we have proved the improbability of John’s birth from an old couple, basing on two important points 1. Father, being very old, his incompetence in giving birth to a child. 2. Mother, being a barren and very old having attained menopause. We also admit the improbability of virgin conceiving a child. This is as improbable a thing as that of a Barren and Menopause conceiving a child. Improbable things becoming possible by spiritual means is called a miracle. Therefore the birth of John was as great a miracle as that of Jesus’ birth from a virgin’s womb. John’s birth - not a miracle - church contends It is needless to write that the church readily accept the miraculous birth of Jesus. But they do not regard the birth of John as a miracle as has been discussed and proved by us as above. We cannot blame the entire christianity as one who blindly deny the well established scientific and medical facts. (Yet) no doubt, there is a majority of elite among them, who however much egoistic they may be towards their own doctrines, agree with the facts such as menopause conceiving a child is as improbable as a virgin conceiving a child. But as regards to the improbability of John’s birth, they totally deny our two points-father being very old and mother being menopause. They may further argue that the period of attaining menopause as has been stated by us, is agreeable in case of the present generation only whose maximum life span is just 100 years. But in consideration with the life span of those times which

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 102

might be between 150-200 years, Elisabeth might not have attained menopause by the time of her conception. Therfore her conceiving a child is not at all improbable and not at all a miraculous one they contend - And they also deny our point of father’s incompetence in giving birth to a child being old in age, just taking the same stand point as in the case of mother; and in support they may give so many medical proofs in establishing the possibility of giving birth, though the couple were very old in age. Therefore there can be no solution in this regard on mere hypothesis from either of the sides respectively. Hypothesis won’t do - scripture is authority However the possibility of giving birth to a child in old age on medical grounds cannot be rejected, unless the potency of the sperms is proved to be of generative nature; and unless the woman is either barren or has attained menopause.However the fact cannot be established on mere hypothetical basis unless we get the couple throughly checked and determined by the medical authorities. But the case under discussion is about the one that had already passed away centuries ago. So we have to depend inevitably on the scriptures only so that the matter can be rightly decided. Zacharias’ prayer not an authority to prove his capability in giving birth John’s parents were Zacharias and Elisabeth. They were very old. They had no child. Zacharias prayed God to grant him a son. The church take this prayer as an scriptural authority to prove that the couple was possibly capable of giving birth to a child. If it were not so, Zacharias would not have prayed God for a child. And they may also say that his prayer was not because the couple was incompetent but because they were not given a child for a long time and so he prayed, which is a clear authority to prove his potency, and capability of his wife, and deny the improbability as

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 103

we explained earlier. To this objection of the church, we would like to say that man prays to God only when things are beyond his reach, the argument of which however goes to a great extent. So instead, we would like to point out some scriptural facts which support our argument beyond doubt. Nowhere it is stated in the Gospels that Zacharias prayed for a child. Yet it can be well ascertained from the angelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s speech who appeared before Zachrias while giving him the glad tidings of a child. we read in Luke But the angel said unto him, fear not, Zachrias, For thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son and thou shalt call his name John.

-Luke 1:13

Similar incident of ancient times : in case of Abraham and Sarah Before proceeding further, let us recall to our minds a similar incident, how an old couple namely Abraham and Sarah was favoured by God,and were blessed with a child Isaac in their old age. Angels appeared to give glad tidings of a son Isaac to the old couple Abraham and Sarah. The conversation goes as here under: Read the following passage Genesis And they [Angels] said unto him [Abraham], where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold in the tent. And he [Angel] said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life: and lo Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age: and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. [That means she was old and attained menopause.] Therefore Sarah laughed within herself saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my Lord [Husband] being

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 104

old also? And the Lord [Angel] said unto Abraham, wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, shall I of surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord [God]? At the time appointed I will return unto thee according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. -Genesis 18:9-14

In the above passage we have an old couple Abraham and Sarah who had no child1. Yet two angels appeared to the couple and gave them glad tidings of a son. Sarah laughed and surprised within herself saying that how could she conceive a child being herself and her spouse very old. As a reply, the angel enquired the reason for her unbelief assuring them of the power of God., interrogatively remarking as whether there was any thing too hard for the Lord, to mean that God is all powerful who can do any thing. The case of this ancient couple was identical in every respect with the case of our old couple under discussion. If the former one’s conception (birth of Isaac) was a miraculaous one (Galatians 4:29), why one should hesitate to accept the latter one’s conception (birth of John) as a miracle? Scripture provides two important reasons why the couple (Zacharias and Elisabeth) could not bring forth a child - a strong support to our arguments Now come to our point under discussion as regards to the conception of the very old lady by name Elisabeth the mother of John. And they(the parents of John - Elisabeth and Zacharias) had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren and they both “were now well stricken in years” (Luke1:7) The above verse very clearly provides two important reasons that why the couple had no child: -(1) She was barren. Barren means

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 105

unproductive or unfit for conception. In very rare cases some females remain unproductive by nature itself. Such are called Barrens. Elisabeth was of that category in whose case conception was a matter never dreamt of. And the second (2) reason as stated in the verse itself was that they both were well stricken in years. This point clearly states that not only the female but also the male(both) had reached to the extremely old age in which stage conceiving a child was as impossible as that of virgin conceiving a child. This only verse is enough to up-hold our stand point that both the male and female were quite unfit for giving birth to a child, as an irrefutable fact as has already been discussed by us. Zacharias himself admits: a further support to our arguments Angel appeared to Zacharias, the spouse of the barren old lady Elisabeth and gave glad tidings of a son to them. But the angel said unto him, fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

-Luke 1:13

And Zacharias surprised on hearing the message of the angel and expressed his inquisitiveness and astonishment stating as follows : And Zacharias said unto the angel, whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years. -Luke 1:18

In the above verse, when Zacharias was given glad tidings of a child by the angel, Zacharias enquires the angel saying as “ Whereby shall I know this?” to mean as saying “How can I know the (conception)? so please provide us some sign so as to determine and calculate the days of conception. Why this token became a necessary means? “ For I am old man...” (This is to mean - as I have attained

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 106

extreme old age there is no chance for a sexual intercourse which act is a main point in conception). And again “ My wife well stricken in years...” This is to mean as-the cessation of the periods is the general phenomenon in calculating and determining the conception. But my wife being menopause“Whereby shall I know this” (how can we know the days of her beginning of the conception?) From these two points one can easily understand that both he and his spouse were very old, in whose case normal conception is not possible. Zacharia’s prayer for a child, and when it is granted his astonishment - not a self contradiction but his obvious inquisitiveness And again his prayer for a child, and when it was granted, his request to grant him some sign to make sure of the conception rather seems as self contradictory. But as a matter of fact it is not so. Zacharias being a prophet of God1, though as we said, he was aware of the fact that both he and his wife had reached to the extremely old age in which stage conception was a matter beyond comprehension, yet with a fond hope with full confidence and faith on God’s wonders, he prayed for a child. On receiving the message of a child he inquisitively requested to give some token so as to determine the beginning of the conception, as she was menopause. But not with no hope or faith on God’s miracles. However, what we primarily need is that from the above verse also the improbability of old man’s giving birth to a child can obviously be ascertained. In Biblical terminology “ my wife well stricken in years” means “my wife has attained menopause.” And furthermore, from the same verse, the curious fact what

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 107

we arrive at is, in the Biblical terminology the meaning of the words “My wife well stricken in years” is to mean as “My wife has attained menopause.” It is not my conclusion basing on mere speculation, but an open fact which can be well understood comparing with the following Biblical record stated in the case of Sarah which reads as here under. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well strecken in Age” and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women Genesis 18:11

As according to the above verse it is clarified that in the Biblical terminology the words used in case of females such as “ well stricken in age” are to mean as “attained Menopause”. Please recall to your minds, that how the same words have been used in case of Elisabeth, saying as “ my wife well stricken in years, in the verse under discussion, which point is self sufficient to say that Elisabeth had attained menopause for which fact no medical check up is necessary. Mary’s and Elisabeth’s conceptions - equated by angel And again the same angel after six months, appeared before the virgin called Mary, and gave glad tidings of a child to her also. As she was a virgin, she surprisingly asked the angel saying as How shall this be, seeing I know not a man ? -Luke 1:34

While convincing her the power of God, who can do whatever He pleases, the angel, to make Mary believe his message quotes the event of Elisabeth that how she conceived in her old age, which point is most note worthy. Thus we read in Luke 1:36-37 And behold thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her who was

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 108

called barren, For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Luke 1:36-37

To mean as to interpret - “you know Elisabeth very well. Because she is your cousin. And you know that she is a barren. And she is very old (means attained menopause) - was it possible for her to conceive? Is not her conceiving a child as improbable as a virgin like you conceiving? yet by the favour of God she conceived. And this is sixth month with her. Is any thing impossible with God? So also, though you are a virgin, you shall conceive and bring forth a child. So be not in doubt about the marvellous deeds of God. When He says any thing to ‘Be’ and it ‘is’.” Above interpretation may appear strange to our christians. If it were not true we would like to ask the church, the reason of angel’s quoting the incident of Elisabeth’s conception making a stress on the point of her old age, when Mary surprisingly questioned the possibility of her conceiving a child as she was a virgin whom no man had ever touched. Further : Church admits that Sarah attained menopause. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age: and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. -Genesis 18:11

And from the further dialogues of the angel made with Abraham, regarding the conception of Sarah even after her attaining meno pause, it can be well inferred that menopause conceiving a child is an improbable thing. Yet if God wills nothing is impossible.This is the reason why the angel deliberately proclaimed -

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 109

Is any thing too hard for the Lord?

-Genesis 18:14

Now what noteworthy is, the same remark was also made by the angel regarding the conceptions of an old lady Elisabeth and the virgin Mary respectively ... “...for with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:36-37) From the above three events in which the stress made by the angels on the point that nothing was impossible for God while giving them the glad tidings of a child to each respectively - menopause and barren Sarah; barren and menopause Elisabeth and the virgin Mary is self sufficient to equate the improbability of conception in each of their cases respectively. That is to say clearly that barren and menopause conceiving a child is as improbable as that of a virgin conceiving. Therefore the birth of John was as great a miracle as that of Jesus. If the case was not improbable no assurance would have been given saying as - ‘is anything impossible with God?’ Leave alone the case of Mary, as she was a virgin, her conception is an open miracle indeed which is acceptable to all unhesitatingly beyond controversy. But the case of Elisabeth’s conception in her old age became a point of perplexity to the church even after so many points as have already been discussed. According to scriptures it is evident that, an angel appeared to Elisabeth (as a matter of fact not directly before Elisabeth, but before her spouse Zacharias. Therefore he represented the case of Elisabeth which can be regarded as though Elisabeth herself had a conversation with the angel) and Mary respectively to give them glad tidings of a child to each of them respectively. On hearing this both wondered as to how was it possible. And in reply angel said - “Nothing is impossible with God.” If the case of Elisabeth were not as abnormal as was the case of virgin Mary, what neces-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 110

sary was there for angel to appear before Ellisabeth? And what was the reason for Elisabeth to wonder if her case were only as normal as that of any other woman? And why angel assured her saying that whether any thing too hard for Lord if her case were not an improbable one as we argue? ‘What the commonsense appeals in this regard is, if the message of conception is given to any woman who is having all her natural and physical faculties in normal position and if she is not despaired of the hope of conception on any abnormal reason there is no need for her to doubt or express her despair saying as -- “How is it possible?” The above scriptural facts prove that the parents of John were quite unfit to give birth to a child. Yet by the special mercy and favour of God, John had been conceived of just as Jesus had been conceived of a virgin Mary. Then are not the births of both John and Jesus equal miracles? Example : There were two saints -- one day an angel appeared to the first saint and said -“You shall surely kill an animal which attack you.” The saint exclaimed and said “How is it possible, as I have no weapons and am too weak?”

The angel replied -“Yes you can do it even without weapons” and interrogatively said “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?”

And after six months, the same angel appeared to the second saint and gave the same message. The diction of dialogues between the second saint and the angel went on in the same manner as in the case of the first saint as stated above. And in addition the angel quoted the incident and explained that how the first saint had killed the animal six months ago, enquiring him whether any

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 111

thing was impossible with God. The attack of animal and the requirement of weapons to kill it, speak of the ferocity of the animal. And overcoming it even without weapons signifies to the special mercy of God which act, in religious terminology is called a miracle. a. The above first and second saints are compared to Elisabeth and Mary respectively. b. In both the events killing of the animals by the saints is a common point which represents to the conception of Elisabeth and Mary respectively. c. Killing the animals empty handed with no weapons denotes the improbability of conception as was in the case of barren and menopause Elisabeth and virgin Mary respectively. d. The assurances given by the angel connote the improbability turning into possibility by the special favour of God. Keeping in view of the incidents of both Elisabeth and Mary as narrated in the Gospel and comparing the same with above example, if the church advocates that the second saint had killed a tiger empty handed with no weapons, whiich is a great miracle and the first saint had killed a cat which act is as easy for anybody as killing of an ant, the narrations of the Gospel to this effect remain as most humorous and ridiculous. The church has now only two options. Either it should admit that the Gospels contain, in consideration with the above facts, humorous narrations or accept that the first saint had killed invariably as ferocious animal as that had been killed by the second saint. If it were not so the exclamation of the first saint that how he could kill the animal without weapons and the assurances given by the angel remain meaningless. It goes without saying that in the normal cases no surprises arise and no assurances are given.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 112

And again what most noteworthy is when the second saint had expressed his doubt, the angel’s quoting of the incident of the first saint how he had killed the animal six months ago. This point is self explanatory that the animal which had been killed by the first saint and the animal which was going to be killed by the second saint were of the same nature. If it were really a cat as is supposed and argued by the church the second saint himself could have difinitely remarked that killing of a tiger was not as easy as that of killing a cat by the first saint.This similitude corresponds to the events of Elisabeth and Mary respectively whose conception was equally improbable and hence the birth of John can in no way be termed as an ordinary and natural one, but as great a miracle as that of the birth of Jesus from a virgin’s womb. In this way also the superiority of Jesus over John is not established. Some points speak superiority of John over Jesus And what a curious fact is, a study of the following points reveals the superiority of John over Jesus. 1. John had Holy Spirit on him right from the day he entered his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). But Jesus received the Holy Spirit only after he was baptized by John (Luke 3:21-22). 2. We understand from the study of the Gospels that Jesus was a prophet. And he described John as geater than a prophet emphasizing the greatness of John among the prophets (Matthew 11:7-9). Not only this, but 3. Declared that no man as great as John was ever conceived of a woman(Luke 7:28). This implies that Jesus himself affirmed the superiority of John above to himself having himself been

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 113

born of a woman like all other human beings. And this may be the reason that why Jesus himself was baptized by John. These points do not however contradict to the original prophecy which speaks of one greater prophet than John and Jesus who was yet to come after both of them, as the above greatness of John more than any one else, is confined to the period only upto their times but in no way can be for the following future time. However, such points as above (Matthew 11:7-9 and Luke 7:28) rather tease the church very much. But these are the verses spoken by Jesus himself. So the church cannot outrightly condemn, but rather try to explain in a compromising manner taking shelter in ethics. Instead of accepting the truth, it further try to explain that these points speak the high morality of Jesus. He never spoke high of himself. And further more he gave the following message, following of which exalts oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own ethical values. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; And he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

-Matthew 23:12

So, the teacher of such a great precept, could never have expressed his own greatness over others, and this may be the reason that why he had exalted the status of John describing him as greater than himself. But in reality Jesus was superior to John - thus the church contends. Were it the case with ordinary people, we have no reason for not concurring with the church. But here the case is about a prophet by a prophet. Prophets give a very clear picture of the things. They never be subdued to any temptation. Nor do they appease any one nor feel delicacy nor show favouritism while conveying the facts. They always spoke in unequivocal terms, so that the correct message or the image of the things may rightly be understood by the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 114

people. If this be the case with prophets, how can we believe the explanation of the church that Jesus had humbled himself and exalted the person of John, just keeping the ethical attitude under his above precept ? Let us agree with church that under the above precept Jesus humbled himself which act resulted in the exaltation of the status of John over Jesus. If it were true Jesus should have always humbled himself. But contrary to this we have incidents in which Jesus had exalted himself over other prophets. Read the following : 1. But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple.

-Matthew 12:6

2. ... and behold, a greater than Jonas is here. -Matthew 12:41 3. ... and behold, a greater than Solomon is here. -Matthew 12:42

In these verses it is evident that Jesus had exalted himself above to Jonas and Solomon. May we ask the church that where had the ethical attitude of Jesus gone when the question of Jonas and Solomon came? Does this not prove that, were Jesus really greaer than John, he could have openly proclaimed his greatness over John just as he did in case of Jonas and Solomon? Does this point not prove with authenticity, the greatness of John over Jesus? Does this point not rule out the objection of the church under the mask of ethical stand point? Mightier than I - can in noway be attributed to the person of Jesus The points so far brought into light prove that Jesus was also a prophet, not greater than John. Therefore the term of the proph-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 115

ecy under discussion â&#x20AC;&#x153;Mightierâ&#x20AC;? can in noway be attributed to the person of Jesus. Then therefore the prophecy undoubtedly points out to the fact about the advent of a greater prophet after Jesus as we are advocating right from the beginning. Keeping in view of these facts, a careful study of the Gospels provides a substantiating list of other prophecies which were made by Jesus himself about the advent of his successor. The observation of these prophecies gives a very clear proof that there was a greater one to come after Jesus. And we have other prophecies also in other books of the Bible, which will be discussed consecutively one after another in pages to come. Now I invite the attention of our readers towards the main prophecy (Matthew 3:11-12) in which the fourth term to be discussed about the one who was to come reads as follows; Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

A LAW GIVING PROPHET WAS TO COME In the above clause of the prophecy, a figurative description of the one who was to come is given. He would have his fan in his hand with which he would separate the wheat and the chaff. Here the fan means Devine law by means of which alone the righteous ones and the sinners can be discriminated. And again wheat means the people who, ever incline to the law following of which alone one can qualify himself of attaining of the favour of God which leads to heavenly rewards (Matthew 7:21).

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 116

And contrary to this, the chaff means the people who transgress the law whom the wrath of God encompasses and leads them to the Hell punishment (Matthew5:19). And therefore according to the above interpretation what we have arrived at is, that one who was to come of this prophecy, must be a law giving prophet. This evidently speaks to the fact that the then existing Mosaic Law which had been followed by all the prophets upto the times of John and Jesus, was to be reminded once again as it would have been corrupted by the prevalence of the inventions. It has been termed as a new law and was to be given through this prophet who was to come after Jesus- of this prophecy. Church interprets in an another way However this point creates panic in the elite of the church as to how to defend owing to the discrepancies as regards to the law in the narrations of the Gospels and the Epistles which are inconsistent with each other, which facts, we shall pinpoint in the present arguments wherever necessary. Therefore the church outrightly condemns our above interpretation and interprets as followsWhose fan is in his hands means whose power to forgive the sins is in his own hands. Fan means power to forgive sins. Wheat means those that believe in Jesus. Chaff means those that do not believe in him. Church never admits the advent of a prophet after Jesus The church takes the following verses and makes a basis for their above interpretation and the arguments concerning in this regard. 1. But that ye may know that the son of man [Jesus] hath power upon earth to forgive sins... -Luke 5:24 2. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 117

Therefore the church contends that neither a prophet1 was to come after Jesus nor a law. But the prophecy under discussion is the fulfilment of the advent of Jesus himself who had the power of forgiving sins of those who belive in him, and to whomever he wished. Thus not only he possessed the power of forgiving sins but also inherited the power of abrogating the complete law as he was given all power both in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). Further, they also contend that he has given them the New Testament,which consists of a new covenant. Therefore they further argue that even if our interpretation as a new law was to come is agreed, the fourth term of the prophecy under discussion most reasonably applicable to Jesus himself on the above grounds. Therefore, now we have to find out basing on the scirptures the following points : 1. Whether there was a new law to come which reminds the Mosaic Law or not. 2. Whether Jesus has given a new law or he himself had followed the then existing Mosaic Law. 3. Whether he had abrogated the then Mosaic Law or the church misconceived and speculated to have done so. That prophet was yet to come with new law after Jesus A new law was promised to be given by a prophet of this main prophecy under discussion who is familiarly known as ‘THAT PROPHET’ who was yet to come after Jesus. In clear terms after Jesus, that prophet was to come who would give a new law, in proof of which we quote below some passages from the Bilble. As a matter of fact these passages are the prophecies made on different occasions in connection with the advent of ‘THAT PROPHET’. We have taken up these passages only to pin point on the fact that there was a prophet to come and through him a new law was to come.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 118

A. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons the one by bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise, which things are an allegory; For these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar... -Galatians 4:21-31 The above passage clearly shows that Abraham had two wives and two sons each born with each woman respectively. These two woman were two covenants means two laws were to come out of the progenies of these two women respectively. These two progenies are 1. Ishmalites and 2. Israelites. From Israelites there came a law through Moses on mount Sinai which had been followed by all the successive prophets even until the times of John and Jesus(John 1:17). Then does it not imply that there was a law due to come after Jesus? Read another passage : In this passage God promises to Moses as follows : B. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. -Deuteronomy 18:18 Does this passage not emphasize on the point what we have said earlier that there was a prophet to come through the progeny of Ishmael (ie) Ishmaelites through whom a new law was to be given? And again Moses said --

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 119

C. And he [Moses] said, the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of Saints ; from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Deuteronomy 33:2 We came to know from the above passages that Moses was given the law which had been followed by all the prophets1. And Moses himself affirms in the above passage about the one who shined forth from Mount Paran2 from whose right hand went a fiery law for them: This proclamation of Moses proves with authenticity that there was a prophet to come who would bring a fiery law for them after Jesus, as until after Jesus, only the Mosaic law was being followed (John1:17). NB : The prophecy is mentioned in the past tense. We shall discuss about this in the arguments when we take up this particular prophecy as a separate one for discussion in our another book under the title â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Universal Prophetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. D. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: Which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts: and will be their God and they shall be my people. Jeremiah 31:31-33 This passage makes clear that a new law (or) another law would be given which supersedes the Mosaic Law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 120

And again we have further evidence from the Gospel that “That prophet” had not appeared until the times of John and Jesus. E. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent preists and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the christ. And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou “THAT PROPHET” And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, who art thou? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that christ, nor Elias, neither That Prophet? -John 1:19-25 The above passage gives a very clear picture that a prophet who was familiarly known as ‘THAT PROPHET’ was yet to come after Jesus. This is an authentic record proving that ‘THAT PROPHET’ had not appeared even until the time of Jesus, which point discloses the fact that he was to come only after Jesus. Please note that all the above passages, we shall deal in another book1 taking each of them as a separate prophecy and discuss consecutively. And we shall rebut all the objections raised by the church regarding these prophecies according to the pertinency wherever necessary. The above passages so far quoted clearly admit that there was a prophet to come with a new law; a fiery law. And also imply that the new law given by him would replace the then Mosaic Law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 121

Did Jesus give new law so as to attribute this term of prophecy to him? But the obstinate church never agrees to this but on the other hand it advocates that all the above passages including the prophecy under discussion speak about the advent of Jesus himself. Now what our contention is, if it were really so, as church advocates, the term of giving a NEW LAW must have been fulfilled by Jesus as all the above passages as well as the main prophecy under discussion lay down an important term of giving a NEW LAW. In clear terms if it were really applicable to Jesus himself as the church advocates, he should have given a NEW LAW but should never have followed the Mosaic Law like all his predecessors. So let us now find out what the Gospel has to say in this regard. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

-John 1:17

The above verse as has been recorded by John in his gospel, very clearly says that until the time of Jesus only the law given by Moses was in rule and not only this but the verse also discloses the fact that Jesus has not given them the new law: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus. Jews misunderstood that Jesus was breaking the law - while church speculated that he was giving them a new law Dispite this clear narration, Jews thought that Jesus was breaking the law and the church speculated that a new law was being given. Why did and how these false notions crept into their minds, is a point noteworthy. 1. The Jews were following the traditions which had been invented by their forefathers, treating them as the doctrines and commandments of God neglecting the real commandment of God or taking the wrong interpretation of it. So Jesus tried to reform

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 122

them by chiding as here under. We read in Mark Then came together unto him the pharisees, and certain of scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault, For the pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have revceived to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the pharisees and scribes asked him, why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? â&#x20AC;&#x153;He answered and said unto them, well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, â&#x20AC;&#x153;This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; howbeit in vain do they worship me, treating for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them full well ye reject the commandment of God. That ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, honour thy father and thy mother; and who so curseth father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, if a man shall say to his father or mother, it is corbon, that is to say, a gift, by whatsover thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother; Making the word of God of none affect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things do ye. -Mark 7:1-13

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 123

2. Further, taking advantage of religious sanctions, they used to behave very excessively towards their fellow beings. For example they became so hardhearted even towards their own wives. They used to divorce them whenever they liked just on the plea of even the smallest shortcomings of their wives taking them as a very serious matter. So Jesus warned them, though there was a religious sanction for divorce, that they should not divorce their wives on mere petty reason except and unless they are proved guilty of formication so as to safeguard the female rights, and to ward off the males from sin of unreasonable divorce. Thus we read in Matthew It hath been said, whosover shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; but I say unto you that whosoever shall part away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. - Matthew 5:31-32

3. And again Jews became so stiffnecked and arrogant and merciless in taking the retaliation. Of course, there was religious sanction for equitable retaliation. But they misused this sanction, and began to retaliate excessively more than what equity permitted. So Jesus outrightly condemned the retaliation and preached that they should waive of their right of retaliation which act of mercy and forgiveness was more profitable for them in the hereafter, than taking even the equitable retaliation. Thus we read in Matthew Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also. And if any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

-Matthew 5:38-40

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 124

4. And as regards to the observance of sabbath day, Jews misunderstood the command of God. They misconceived that they should desist themselves even from doing good deeds such as helping others and healing the diseased etc. etc; to keep up the sanctity of the sabbath day. Thus they had been perverted from the right concept of the sabbath day and what they practised according to the tradition, they regarded it as the real law, so Jesus gave them the correct annotation as regards to this even by practically healing the deseased man on the sabbath day, which act appeared to Jews as profaning of the sanctity of the day of sabbath. Thus we read in Matthew And when he was departed thence, he went into their synogogue. And behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, what man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherfore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole like as the other. Then the pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. Matthew 12:9-14

5. Jesus used to chide the Jews openly who did not observe the law in its perspective manner. But they could not understand the teachings of Jesus. We read in Matthew woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 125

matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind pharisee cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bones and full of uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. -Matthew 23:23-28

6. Many of the Jews thought that Jesus was not of God as he was not observing the Sabbath days, just as in the same manner as they were observing according to their tradition. Thus we read... They brought to the pharisees him that afore time was blind. And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then again pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them he put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed and do see. Therefore said some of the pharisees, this man is not of God. Because he keepeth not the Sabbath day...

John 9:13-16

7. Not only this, but we have a clear witness that how the Jews thought that Jesus was breaking the law. We read... Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, (not

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 126

because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

-John 7:21-24

The aforesaid are some examples which show that how Jesus tried to mend their traditions and wrong notions as regards to the observance of the law. And at the same time he forbade some lawful matters only with the aim to make the Jews desist from utilizing them though there was a religious sanction for them lest they might go excessively. These acts of Jesus made both the Jews and christians to slip from the real understanding of his teachings. The former ones thought that he was breaking the law; while the latter ones misunderstood that he was giving them a new law, by abrogating the then existing law. As a matter of fact Jesus was neither breaking the law, nor changing it nor a new law was being introduced but what all he did was, he taught the correct procedure and gave them the real annotation as regards to the observance of the then existing Mosaic law. In clear terms he tried to reform them, by reminding them the perspective law, and at the same time he tried to assure them that he was not breaking the law but following it, saying in clear terms as here under. Jesus followed the law of Moses and exhorted men to follow it meticulously Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 127

one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:17-19

The first verse of the above passage means to say as “Do not think that I am abrogating the (existing) law or condemning the teachings of (other) prophets. I have come only to follow it, and accordingly following it.” The second verse means as- “ what all are said in the law and in the teachings of the prophets in their respective books such as prophecies, promises, events and happenings whatever fore-told, all must be fulfilled. Thus evey point of the Bible would be given effect to, without fail.” In the third verse, Jesus reiterates that how strictly he was following the then Mosaic law and exhorts others to follow it giving a stress on the point saying as that whosoever breaks the least command of the law and preach men to do so would be the least in the kingdom of heaven and on the other hand whosoever obeys the law and do accordingly and teach men to do so would be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Then does it mean that Jesus had not followed the Mosaic Law? or had abrogated? or that he had given a new law? Not at all. If not how can the church attribute this term of the prophecy which explicitly points out that one who was to come should give a new law, to the person of Jesus? But on one hand to rebut our above clear points which prove with authenticity the advent of another prophet who would give a new law after Jesus, and on the other hand when the observance of the law is questioned, to evade by simply saying that they have been exempted from law as Jesus himself had fulfilled the law,

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 128

which doctrine is the outcome of the after thought development of the church basing on apostexelic narrations written by different authors in the epistles, the church takes advantage of the second verse of the above passage (i.e) Matthew 5:18 and interprets its meaning under two different ways which are quite contradictory to one another, and to the very meaning of the verse itself. The verse is reproduced here under : Interpretations of the church - a glaring contradiction for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. -Matthew 5:18

First interpretation of the church: For verily I (Jesus) say unto you, as long as heaven and earth endure, not even a jot or a title of the (then existing) law shall pass. In clear terms, to mean as that the then existing Mosaic law would be in rule as long as the heaven and earth remain. This interpretation however is not preached in the churches, but it is purely intended to rebut our contention which they use only at the times of arguments with Muslims on this subject, so as to enable themselves to say in the light of the verse that there is no chance for any other law to come until the dooms day. Second interpretation of the church: Heaven and earth may pass, but one jot or one title of the law shall not pass unless all law be fulfilled. To mean that the then existing law shall have been in rule only upto the period till all law was fulfilled. After the fulfilment of the law, the then Mosaic Law would vanish away. Further stress is given on its possibility saying as heaven and earth may pass, but this fact does not remain unfulfilled.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 129

This interpretation is being taught in the churches to justify the inconsistent and perversive teachings as narrated in the epistles by different authors as regards to the law. These points, however, shall be discussed later according to reason whenever necessary. These two interpretations of the church are self contradictory. The first interpretation is purely intended to rebut our arguments which prove with authenticity that there was a prophet to appear with a new law, after Jesus. The second is useful to the church to get christianity freed from the Yoke of Law. If the first interpretation of the church is accepted, according to it, as the then Mosaic law would be in rule as long as the heaven and the earth endure, there is no chance for any other law to come. And the second interpretation though it is defferent in nature, the acceptance of which results in the same way as in the case of first interpretation. This is how, according to the second interpretation, (As Jesus had fulfilled the law which points are discussed in forthcoming pages) mankind is redeemed from the curse of law. When the law itself has been regarded as a curse it goes without saying that expecting for another new law would be meaningless. Though these two interpretations of the church are different in nature, and useful to the church to argue in two different ways, both the interpretations contradict to our above arguments and the relevant interpretation to the verse made by us. Examination of the verse discloses the facts To know the correct and perspecuous meaning, a careful examination of the verse is necessary. Keeping in mind both the interpretations of the church, let us examine the verse, under two modelsFirst Model :- “Till heaven and earth pass one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law.” In this model the last clause “ Till all be fulfilled” is omitted.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 130

If the verse were really complete within itself as stated above, without the last clause associated with it, the first interpretation of the church could have been true and correct. And therefore there could have been no chance for any other law to come which is an admitted fact. Second Model :- In this model we have to take up the complete verse without leaving the last clause as has been done in the above first model, so that the correct meaning what the verse conveys can be ascertained. In the first model, we have examined the verse leaving the last clause ‘TILL ALL BE FULFILLED’. If Jesus were really of the opinion to convey its meaning as the first interpretation of the church to mean as that no law was to come and that the then existing Mosaic Law would be in rule as long as heaven and earth endure, he would not have added this last clause ‘TILL ALL BE FULFILLED’; because as we said earlier, even without this clause the purpose could have been served. By adding the last clause, did Jesus not mean to convey its meaning as some thing else other than the first interpretation of the church? Therefore keeping in view of this only point in the light of the complete verse, the first interpretation of the church can be ruled out. Now let us discuss about the second interpretation of the church. The whole mystery is within this clause (i.e) ‘TILL ALL BE FULFILLED’. The meaning of ‘all’ is not clearly stated. In other words what the word ‘all’ stands for, is not clearly pointed out. Therefore the church takes the meaning of the word ‘all’ as “all the law1.” According to context and construction of the verse, of course there is chance to take this meaning also. Keeping in view of this meaning(i.e) ‘all’ as ‘all law,’ the verse means to read as - “unless all law be fulfilled (completed), heaven and earth may pass, but one jot or one title shall not pass from the law.”

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 131

In this way the seond interpretation of the church proved true as they advocate provided the word ‘all’ really means for law as church presumes. Then this clearly means that the then existing Mosaic Law would be in rule either as long as heaven and earth endure if the law was not fulfilled (completed) until then or only until all law be fulfilled, if ‘all’ were really to mean for law as church advocates. However, either of the points avails the church to pose a question logically as- “ If this be the meaning of the verse, where is the chance for another law to come?” Just for argument’s sake, if the interpretation of the church were to be a truth, we too would like to ask the church- “Where is the chance then for Jesus too to give them a new law(covenant) as christianity believes and argues according to its option?” And where is the scope for either the church or the Holy Ghost to relax or grant consolations in the law, which points we shall discuss later? Now the church has either to admit that their interpretation to the verse as wrong or as their latter thought development or as their erroneous excesses made against to the teachings of Jesus. And again we would like to ask that if the interpretation of the church were true, and if there were really no law to come as is the contention of the church, are the passages what all we have earlier quoted in this regard showing that there was a prophet to come with a new law : a fiery law : false? Then can the church dare admit that the Bible consists of false passages and false promises and false prophecies? And again the church may unhesitatingly say that all the passages quoted by us speak about Jesus only and that Jesus had fulfilled (completed) all the law; and redeemed the christianity from

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 132

the curse of law, the points which we shall discuss in further pages and refute one after another according to the necessity and pertinency. This is where the church has erred, and the wrong interpretation which the church has adopted for the clause â&#x20AC;&#x153;TILL ALL BE FULFILLEDâ&#x20AC;? is the basis and outcome for this type of misconception regarding the law. Or this type of perversive interpretation might have been invented by the church to justify the perversive and inconsistent teachings and narrations as regards to the law in the epistles of different writers, which have been juxtaposed in the Bible. Law cannot be completed - but can be ever followed Whatever be the interpretation and fate of law in christian viewpoint, as a matter of fact law cannot be fulfilled (completed) but must be ever followed: because law is not a building or something like that, which must be fulfilled (completed) by some persons or any person, but it is the commandment of God, which consists of forbiddances, ordinances, rites and rituals, statutes, teachings how to worship and how to be faithful to God and code of conduct etc, etc., the observance and following of which is an incumbent obligation on every believer as long as he lives in his belief and faith in God. Then therefore there arises no question of completion (fulfilment) of the law at all. It is to be ever followed and strictly observed until as further commandments (if any) come; which again shall be in rule. Therefore no question of completion but obligation to ever follow is there. This is what exactly Bible exhorts. Some verses which show the importance of observance of the law a. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. -Malachi 4:4

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 133

b. And the statutes, and the ordinances and the law, and the commandment which he (Moses) wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for ever more; and ye shall not fear other gods. -II Kings 17:37 c. And the covenant that I have made with you, ye shall not forget; neither shall ye fear other gods. - I I Kings 17:38 d. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous and then thou shalt have good success. -Joshsua 1:8 e. Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left. -Joshua 23:6 f. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. -Joshua 1:7 Now I request the church to examine carefully the above quoted verses. In all these verses a stern warning has been given that the law which had been given through the prophet Moses must be obeyed and observed without turning aside from it either to the right hand or to the left so that they might be prosperous and successful. This is exactly what Jesus has given his annotation on the above referred verses saying as-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 134

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:19

And again Jesus at the close of his sermon on mount gives a stern warning and a stress on the observance of the law(i.e) the will of God : Thus sayingNot every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

-Matthew 7:21

Then does this verse mean to say that the church has been exempted from law and that Jesus himself had taken all responsibility of fulfilling (completing) the will of God on his own shoulders leaving nothing for his followers? And also prophesies about the people who work contrary to the will of God(law): thus saying Many will say to me in that day (on the day of judgment) Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

-Matthew 7:22-23

Thus Jesus himself admits that law should ever be followed by every believer and warns the evil consequences of those that work contrary to the law. Here it may be noted that when Moses was given this law which was to be followed strictly, then and there itself a new law was also promised to be given through that prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18)1 which infers the fact that the Mosaic law was to be fol-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 135

lowed as long as until the new law, the promised law came. Observe to do according to all that is written therein -Johsua 1:8

...means “what all is ordained in the law, that every believer has to observe and obey.” But the above referred verses do not convey the meaning of fulfilling the law in the sense of completing the law as church interprets just as in the sense of completing the construction of a building or some thing like that; and after its completion leaving there no job in pending for any one to do. If this be the case as regards to the observance of the law continuously by every believer, is there any meaning in the interpretation of the church that it was to be completed? And that too by Jesus himself alone? Then does the clause ‘TILL ALL BE FULFILLED’ not speak about something else but not about the law? For the apt answer, examine our interpretation. Till all be fulfilled - what ‘all’? all prophecies made in the books of Moses and prophets Now turn towards our interpretation. According to us from the clause ‘TILL ALL BE FULFILLED’ the word - ‘all’ means all the promises and prophecies made in the law and other prophets. Then the verse means to read as “For verily I say unto you, heaven and earth may pass, but one jot or one title of the promises and prophecies made in the law shall in no wise pass, till all be fulfilled.” In clear terms to mean as saying stressingly that all prophecies made in the book of law and other prophets must all be fulfilled. Keeping in view of the prophecies and promises made in the Bible it is reasonable to think that they must all be fulfilled.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 136

In consideration with the arguments made by us in the light of Biblical references it is evident that law is not a thing to be fulfilled (completed) but the ordinances of God which must ever be followed and obeyed and observed. But prophecies and promises as they were made by God must be fulfilled(completed). Otherwise the Bible itself loses its sanctity of being the word of God. Further to emphasize on this point the verse begins with ‘Till heaven and earth pass’ to mean as, that heaven and earth may pass, but the prophecies and the promises made in the law and the prophets shall not go in vain, till all be fulfilled. Then does the last clause ‘Till all be fulfilled’ not imply to mean as what we have interpreted? As we have said earlier that if the first interpretation of the church were true, Jesus would not have added this last clause “ Till all be fulfilled” as even without this clause the verse clearly conveys the meaning as the first interpretation of the church, to mean as that the then existing Mosaic Law would be in rule as long as the heaven and the earth remain(i.e) until dooms day. And further, we also learnt from a number of verses that the law is not a thing to be completed (fulfilled) but an obligation that every believer should ever follow. If this be the case with law could Jesus ever have given expression to mean as that the law should be completed, contradicting the very purpose of law what it is really meant for, by adding the additional clause “Till all be fulfilled,” if it is not meant for promises and prophecies as we argue? This only logic is enough to disprove both the interpretations of the church for the verse under discussion. Observance of law is a necessary means to obtain a high place in the kingdom of God And again let us discuss the same point in an another way. Now take the verse Matthew 5:17

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 137

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

-Matthew 5:17

This verse very clearly shows that Jesus had come only as a follower of the then existing law but not to abrogate it which implies that he had not given them a new law nor the law had ever been fulfilled (completed) by Jesus himself so as to let loose the ties of law from the necks of christians. But to contradict this, the church takes the literal meaning of the word ‘...but to fulfill’ to mean as ‘to complete’ and argue that Jesus had redeemed them from the law by fulfilling it without leaving any thing for his followers. Thus under this false impression church began to regard the law as a curse for them and trampled down every commandment of God gradually one after another (Galatians 3:10-13) except the code of conduct such as “steal not,” “speak not lies” etc, etc., which are even observed by the lawless and faithless athiests(Romans 2:14), which point however does not contradict to our above proclamation. If what church argues under this verse (Matthew 5:17) were to be a truth, we would like to ask, could ever Jesus have further emphasized saying as follows? Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosover shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:19

Does the above verse not conclusively say that the law was not a thing to be completed by Jesus himself as church misinterprets, but the ordinances of God which every believer should ever follow and obey as we contend? Jews were neglecting the real law and only a nominal law was being observed and traditions were

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 138

preferred to lawSo Jesus 1. condemned the traditions of their forefathers and warned them that they should observe the devine law in its perspicuous way leaving aside the traditions which had no religious sanction (Mark 7:1-13). 2. advised them to understand the law in its correct and appropriate manner and to follow it(Matthew 12:9-14). 3. very often scolded the pharisees and the scribes who did not observe the entire law but used to practise the easier things of the law leaving aside the heavier matters. For such people he openly propclaimed as “Hypocrites” and warned them that they should follow the entire law(Matthew 23:23-28). Do these points not clearly infer that law is an incumbent order on every believer with no exemption? Do these teachings of Jesus mean to say that Jesus himself would fulfill (complete) the law completely exempting all others? Then do the words ‘To fulfill’ of the verse Matthew 5:17 not mean as ‘to follow’ as we interpret but not as ‘to complete’ as church contends? From the arguments made so far we came to know that law is not a thing to be fulfilled(completed) but an obligation that every believer should ever fulfill(follow). Then does the verse(Matthew 5:18) under discussion with association of the last clause ‘Till all be fulfilled’ not mean to say that unless all the promises and prophecies be fulfilled (completed) as we advocate: but not that unless all law be fulfilled(completed) as the church advocates? After our diligent examination of the verses under discussion (Matthew 5:17-19) we came to know that the word ‘fulfill’ used in

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 139

the verse 5:17 means as ‘follow’ and the word ‘fulfill’ used in the verse 5:18 means as ‘complete’. The middle verse of the passage matthew 5:17-19 inserted to create confusion and to invite towards their interpretation (Please take note of the two verses of Matthew 5:17 and 19) When Jews began to think of Jesus as a law breaker, just to clear off their misconceptions regarding him about the law, he tried his best to convince them that he was neither breaking the law nor changing it, but was very strictly following it by giving a stress on saying as --Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

-Matthew 5:17

Further, to emphasize on this point and to stress upon the necessity of the observance of the law by every individual, he said as follows --Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:19

As a matter of tact the first and the last verses of the passage of Matthew 5:17,19 deal with the law. The first verse stresses on the point that Jesus was not abrogating the law, but was following it which infers the fact that a new law had not been given by him; while the last verse reiterates that how strictly that every believer should follow the law without leaving the least commandment of it. This implies the fact that the law was not confined only to the person of Jesus in order to get it fulfilled by himself alone leaving nothing for his followers as speculated and preached by the church.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 140

But the middle verse (Matthew 5:18) which has been inserted in between the two verses (Matthew 5:17 and 19) is quite irrelevant to the context. The displacement of this verse might have wantonly been done by the church to lead the readers towards their interpretations creating a sort of confusion, as has already been discussed by us, or due to the oversight of the Gospel writer. Whatever be the matter, our analytic discussion as regards to this passage, revealed the fact that this verse under question does not mean to convey its meaning as both the interpretations of the church but only stresses to mean as what we have interpreted,(ie) “For verily I say unto you, heavens and earth may pass, but one jot or one title of the promises and prophecies made in the law shall in no wise pass, till all be fulfilled.” The interpretation of the verse as stated above reveals the following points -1. ‘Heavens and earth may pass’ is the clause uttered by Jesus to stress upon the possibility of the fulfilment of the things he told, which means to say as... “never remain unfufilled though heavens and earth pass.” It had been the custom and habit of Jesus to stress upon the words such as “Heaven and earth shall pass; but my words shall in no wise pass” to emphasize upon the matter he uttered. We have a similar utterance in the following reference: Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.

-Luke 21:32-33

2. What are they that never fail to be fulfilled (of Matthew 5:18)? They are the promises and prophecies concerning himself made in the book of law. As regards to this we have a clarified

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 141

statement to this effect as recorded in Luke 24:44. And he said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the psalms, concerning me.

-Luke 24:44

NB : For the context and better understanding please go through the whole chapter 24 of Luke. Then does it mean that the then existing law would remain until as all promises and prophecies be fulfilled? or Does it mean that the then existing law would remain until the heavens and earth pass? Neither of the two can be taken for granted. But in clear terms what he said is that one jot or one title of the promises and prophecies made in the law never pass till all be fulfilled. To imphasize on the authenticity of his utterance, he said that “Heaven and earth may pass” to mean as “my words never pass unfulfilled”. This clause ‘Till heaven and earth pass’ to mean as ‘my words never pass unfulfilled.’ This clause ‘Till heaven and earth pass’ has been used only to emphasize on the fulfilment of the things he uttered as was his custom, but has no bearing either on the law or on the duration of the law. These words were not used relatively representing the time factor but expressively used to emphasize on the possibility of the fulfilment of the promises and prophecies made in the law. Therefore it is evidently proved that the then existing law would not remain until as heaven and earth pass nor would it remain until as all the prophecies or promises made, be fulfilled. But was to remain as had been promised, till the advent of that prophet who would give another law by replacing the Mosaic law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 142

SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROPHETS IN GENERAL-THE ROLE OF CHURCH AGAINST THAT PROPHET It had been the custom of God to raise the prophets among the peoples from among themselves whenever the religious spirit was declined and invented traditional practices and false dogmas were taken place. No prophet had ever appeared to join hands with such irreligious people. But every prophet of God raised his voice against such false dogmas and beliefs and tried to reform them by reminding them with the real teachings of original religion. But it became too hard for the people to accept the reformations in preference to their false traditions. This was the reason why Jesus became an enemy of Jews. And this is the exact response given to “That prophet” by christian world. Any point about the advent of ‘That Prophet’ with a new law is as undesirable to the church as it was in the case of the advent of Jesus for Jews, who when he appeared fought tooth and nail to make an end of him. Just in the same manner the church is treating “That Prophet” as an unwelcome guest about whom even hearing or thinking is as teasing and troublesome to them as it had been for Jews about Jesus. Was there no prophecy clearly mentioned about the advent of Jesus in their scripture? Yet Jews ignored Jesus. So also inspite of clear prophecies about the advent of ‘That Prophet’ in their scriptures, the church, instead of accepting ‘That Prophet’ it began to attribute all the prophecies made regarding him, to the person of Jesus himself so that the person of ‘That Prophet’ and his teachings might be rooted out and the terms specifically mentioned qualifying him to be ascribed to the person of Jesus by hook or crook so as to keep the christandom in the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 143

gloom of contented rejoicement which they are made to be in. Jews refused Jesus; was it in any way loss to him? No. But it is Jews themselves who sustained a great loss in the heavenly kingdom. Just in the same manner the church has left no stone unturned to justify their stand against that prophet. To achieve its objective it has made so many alterations in their scriptures and added interpolations to suit their interpretations on their invented dogmas. As regards to this a number of points have already been discussed and brought to the notice of our readers. According to this main prophecy (Matthew 3:11-12) and some other prophecies, the one who was to come should be a law giving prophet. And our arguments so far made, proved that Jesus was not a law giving prophet but on the other hand he himself had followed the then Mosaic Law, which point dampens and deprives the church of its claim.Thus the fourth term of the prophecy under discussion also does not attract to the person of Jesus.

CHURCH FORWARDS SOME QUR’ANIC VERSES TO UPHOLD ITS ARGUMENTS So even though it does not regard the Qur’an as the revelation, just to uphold its argument, it quotes the following verses from Qur’an and contend that it virtually agrees that Jesus had given a new law; and that therefore the fourth term of the prophecy under discussion apply to Jesus himself and thus the prophecy is told about the advent of Jesus himself - they contend. So now let us examine the following Qur’anic verses which the church quotes. 1. He [Jesus] said, ‘I am a servant of Allah. He has given me the book [Gospel] and made me a prophet’. -Qur’an 19:30

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 144

2. And let the people of the Gospel [Christians] judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, and whoso judges not by what Allah has revealed, these it is who are the rebellious. -Qur’an 5:47 3. He [God] has sent down to thee the Book [Qur’an] containing the truth and testifying that which preceds it; and He sent down the Torah [the book of Moses] and the Gospel [the book of Jesus] before this, as a guidance of the people, and He has sent down the discrimination. -Qur’an 3:3 4. I [Jesus] have come to you, confirming the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you some of that which was forbidden to you. And have come to you with a sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me. -Qur’an 3:50 5. When Jesus came with clear signs, he said: “ Now have I come to you with wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the [points] on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.” -Qur’an 43:63 Basing on the above verses the contention of the church is as follows: According to the first verse, Jesus has been given a book which is known as Injeel according to Qur’anic term, means Gospel. And according to the second verse it is evident that Allah has ordained the christians to judge according to that which has been revealed in the Gospel with a stern warning rejecting of which is rebellion. This point very convincingly admits that the Gospel contains law without which a command by Allah to judge according to it, is meaningless.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 145

And according to the third verse, mentioning the name of Torah (The book of Moses) and Gospel (The book of Jesus) as two separate books sent for the guidance of the people implies that the Israelites were given the book of Moses which contains their own law and latter the christians were given the Gospel which contains their own law. These Books were sent as guidance to people means these two books are two separate guides for two separate communities. And without law the book given cannot be a guide. Therefore the Gospel contains the law which point evidently proves that Jesus has given the christians a new law. This is their contention. According to the church, the sum and substance of the above verses of the Qur’an is - that Jesus was given a book (Gospel) containing the law for christians and therefore Jesus was a law giving prophet and hence they contend that the prophecy under discussion is applicable to Jesus himself. To this objection of the church, we would like to say at the outset that it has erred to understand the Qur’anic verses as regards to the issue at hand, just as it erred in understanding their own scriptures, the facts of which have been discussed already in many places. The above contention of the church is the outcome of the cursory reading of the Qur’an. And a careful study of it reveals the fact that it is not true to say that a new law has been given by Jesus. But both according to Gospel and Qur’an as well, Jesus was only a follower of the Mosaic law and an annotator but not at all a law giving prophet. Introduction to the study of Qur’an In this regard we would like to bring the following necessary information about Qur’an as an introductory notes. So prior to my exposition on its verses which church quotes

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 146

to defend itself in upholding its argument, I would like to invite the attention that how Qur’an presents its message and invites towards its study and understanding. 1. The first and foremost point is that it consists no contradictions. Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from any one other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.

-Qur’an 4:82

2. The second point is that it consists of two sorts of verses (1) Mahkumath (Decesive in meaning) and (2) Muthashabihath (susceptible of different interpretations). He it is who has sent down to thee the book; in it there are verses that are decesive in meaning - they are the basis of the book - and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, “We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.” - And none heed except those gifted with understanding.--

Qur’an 3:7

3. The third point is that it was not revealed all atonce. And those who disbelieve say why was not the Qur’an revealed to him all atonce? We have revealed it thus that We may strengthen thy heart there with. And we have arranged it in the best form. Qur’an 25:32

The above verse not only says that it has been revealed in piecemeal but also provides the reason for such gradual and slow process saying as- “We may strengthen thy heart there with.” Thus

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 147

it was revealed in a gradual process according to the necessity and the demand of the occasions, so that the hearts of the believers may be strengthened with the necessary information as and when deemed fit. 4. And the fourth point is that it has been revealed in piecemeal according to the necessity just stressing on the point that time and occasion demanded. 5. The fifth is, it narrates the parables of earlier (preceding) prophets, oft repeatedly. One wonders if he be a cursory reader, as to why these repetitions are made. As a matter of fact, at a glance the story every time repeated in different chapters appears to be all alike with mere repetitions. But the case with Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;anic narrations is not like that. Though it looks like so on the very first glance of it, every time it presents some new message or illuminates on some thought provoking points, or provides the same information so that its importance may be stressed. The story of Adam For example the parable of Adam has been related seven times in different chapters. But it is not merely a repetition, but as we said how Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an presents every time new points can be seen, as furnished below. The following is the substance of the story of Adam which has been compiled, taking the sum and substance of the narrations found in different chapters. God created Adam and commanded the angels to submit before him (Adam). All the angels obeyed God and submitted to Adam; but Iblis (satan) did not. On, enquiry, he said to God that he was superior to man and hence he did not submit. Then God adjudged him as of the rejected and lost. He envied man and developped enmity, and so prayed God to grant him respite until

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 148

the day of resurrection, so that he could mislead the man and his progeny; and the prayer of Iblis was granted. Then God placed Adam and his wife in the paradise and asked them to enjoy every fruit of the paradise forbidding a particular fruit. And at the same time He also warned them about Satan saying clearly that he was an enemy to them. Adam and his spouse were in the paradise enjoying the heavenly pleasures. Then Satan enticed them and caused both of them to slip and to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Then they became repentant and prayed God for forgiveness. God forgave them and sent them on the earth along with Satan. That is all the story of Adam which has been repeated seven times in Qur’an in various chapters. Repetitions - yet contain new points Well! Is that all what has been repeated in seven different places? No. But every time, the Quraan provides new spiritual message and thought provoking points which can be noticed as here undera. In the 2nd chapter of the Qur’an there are 10 vereses which are dealt with the story of Adam. (Please refer to Qur’an 2:30-39) Highlights of th passage - Adam’s sin forgiven - doctrine of original sin ruled out 1. Man is created to be the vice-gerent of God on the earth. 2. Man’s flexible nature of yielding to the temptation of wicked deeds such as shedding blood and causing disorder on earth is mentioned. 3. Yet man is crowned with the glory of wisdom. 4. Angels ever remain in obedience to God, ever glorifying Him. 5. Yet their knowledge is confined to the limits which they have been conferred with. 6. Above all the most important point that God clears in this passage under the following verses is that the sin of Adam and Eve

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 149

was forgiven. Thus the false doctrine of Original Sin professed by christians is rebutted, and the baseless false notion that the sin of Adam is being transmitted hereditarily from generation to generation engulfing all mankind is refuted1. Then Adam learnt from his Lord certain words of prayer. So He turned towards him with mercy. Surely He is oft returning with compassion and is merciful.

-Qur’an 2:37

Here two questions may be raised. A. If Adam’s sin was forgiven while he was yet in paradise, why was he sent out of it? and why was he sent on the earth? Ans : For this, the first verse of the passage clearly says that man was created to be the vicegerent of God on the earth for an appointed time. This is the reason why he was sent on the earth even after the forgiveness of his sin, but not as a punishment. (Read together with 2:30-36) B. If he was to be the vicegerenent of God on earth, why was he put in paradise instead of earth in the very beginning itself? Ans :Though the direct answer for this is no where given in Qur’an, a careful study of the passages relevant to the story, provides an inference, that God wanted to prove practically that how Satan deceives the man, and what would be the repercussion if one obeys him. Thus it is also made known to the first couple that the paradise is the place exclusively for those that lead their life in obedience to God. 7. Eventually, at the time of sending the couple on the earth, God gives His important message Free will and freedom of choice given We said: “Go forth, all of you, from here. And if there comes to

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 150

you guidance from Me, then whoso shall follow my guidance, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve. But they who will disbelieve and treat our signs as lies, these shall be the inmates of the fire, there in shall they abide.

-Qur’an 2:38,39

This implies the fact that man is set at liberty and given freewill and freedom of choice whether to accept the guidance which has been coming right from the beginning in succession through prophet after prophet which leads to paradise again or to reject which results in eternal damnation in Hell. Now let us examine the 2nd passage as narrated in 7th chapter 11-25 verses. Order to submit before Adam not confined to angels alone but included Iblis also 1. Iblis (Satan) as we know that he is not from among the Angels. According to the story of Adam, the command of God for the submission to Adam appears to have been confined only to the angels but not to any one from among the other beings. If it were so why Iblis (Satan) was requited of his disobedience? and was adjudged as cursed and lost? For this the answer is given in the following verse which indicates that the order was not confined only to the angels but also included Iblis. Thus we read God said, what prevented thee [Iblis] from submitting when I commanded thee? -Qur’an 7:12

This is one specimen that how Qur’an gives its message and makes a stress on the aim only according to the necessity and the importance of the demand of the time and occasion. 2. The reason why Iblis did not submit to Adam, as an answer to the God’s enquiry can be seen in the same verse.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 151

... He [Iblis] said, I am better than he [Adam]. Thou hast created me of fire while him hast thou created of clay.

-Qur’an 7:12

In this verse it is made clear that Adam(man) was created of clay and Iblis(which is another creation) which is neither a man nor an angel, is made of fire. 3. In this verse(7:15) when Iblis requested to grant him respite until the day of resurrection (Dooms day), it is not merely said that his prayer had been granted and accordingly that he should be living until the day of resurrection, but it is said “ thou shalt be of those who are given respite(7:15)” Which shows that there are others too who have been granted respite until the dooms day1. 4. In this passage the conversation between God and Iblis is incorporated. And also that how Adam and Eve were deceived by Iblis is described. 5. Here in this passage the prayer of Adam and his wife, to God is mentioned. We read : They said, our Lord, we have wronged ourselves; and if thou forgive us not and have mercy on us, we shall surely be of the lost. -Qur’an 7:23

In the earlier passage it is simply said that Adam learnt some words of prayer from his Lord. Here in this passage the actual words what he uttered in his prayer to God are recorded so as to teach the believers that how should they penitently pray God for their forgiveness when any transgression or excess is committed knowingly or ignorantly. Man can live only on the planet - earth 6. And again in the last two verses it is stated that mankind has an

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 152

abode on earth and a provision for an appointed time, wherein it shall live, and wherein it shall die and wherefrom it shall be brought-forth again on the day of Resurrection. In these two verses (7:24,25) of this passage it is emphatically stated that man can live only on this planet of earth. It is the only place where mankind can live, with all necessary things required, provided therein for its survival. But in other planets such as moon etc. etc., on which the experiments are being made to make the man inhabit therein, are not the places meant for human inhabitation. Yet they are all created for man’s other purposes such as light, heat etc.etc., the mention of which we can see from Qur’an in many other places. Now let us see the 3rd passage. (15:26-44) The Jinns of Qur’an are the Giants of Bible 1. In the first verse the creation of man is mentioned --From dry ringing clay from black mud wrought into shape. Qur’an15:26

2. In the second verse the creation of Jinn... We had created before from the Fire of hot wind. -Qur’an15:27

NB : Before means before the creation of man. Who are these Jinns? These are another living beings answerable to God just as mankind and angels. But they are not either mankind or angels but separate beings different from both, which had been created from hot wind, even before the creation of man. According to Bible these Jinns are called giants. There were giants on the earth in those days and also after that...

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 153

-Genesis 6:4 That also who accounted a land of giants. Giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims. Deutermeny 2:20 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. -Numbers 13:33 Said a stalwart from among the Jinn : “ I will bring it to thee before thou rise from the camp, and indeed I possess power therefor and I am trustworthy.

-Qur’an 27:39

Hower these Biblical and Qur’anic verses reveal the fact that Jinns (Giants) are of huge size. Qur’an upholds that they are not from mankind but are separate beings different from both the angels and mankind. Darwin theory of evolution is buried alive even before its evolution. Here two points are revealed.

3. In this passage under the following verse God commands to angels as --- “So when I fashioned him [Adam] (in perfection) and have breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye [Angels] down in submission to him” (Qur’an 15:29) A. The existing Darwin theory of Evolution is refuted by saying that man was perfected (in his creation) even before he was breathed in, the life giving object, the spirit or soul.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 154

The likely misconception that Jesus possessed of devine soul ruled out B. While explaining how the virgin Mary conceived Jesus and about his miraculous birth God described in three occasions in Qur’an that He had breathed into him(Jesus) His spirit. This may however not only give scope to strengthen the existing Trinitarian or sonship dogmas of christianity, but also may mislead many to attribute divinity to Jesus. So to put an end to such likely misconceptions God made it clear in Quraan in this verse saying that he had breathed into the perfected body of Adam His spirit. And again to make it clear that it was not the case particular either with Jesus or with Adam, but every man is breathed of God’s spirit, He furnishes as follows in general. Who has made perfect everything He has created. And He began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his progeny from an extract of an insignificant fluid. Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit. And He has given you ears, and eyes and hearts. But little thanks do you give!

-Quraan 32:7-

One should not take the wrong interpretation of the words of God saying as ‘My Spirit’ breathed into the living beings to mean as that every living being in the world is consisting of the spirit of God; thus every living being is a Godpart, as some Hindu scholars suppose and preach. Here the words ‘My Spirit’ denotes for ‘God’s Spirit’. This possesive case, expresses the possession or ownership. Is spirit only the God’s property? No. In the universe, every thing belongs to God. Every thing is of God. Then does every thing a Godpart? Example:- I write with my pen. Can the pen with which I write be a part of my ownself merely because I say ‘My Pen?’ No. Not at all.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 155

Worship of devatas a meaningless act Again in this passage under verse (15:30) it is said that the angels submitted to the command of God (ie) they fell down in submission before the man. Thus the Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an indirectly gives its message to those that worship the angels (Devatas) treating them as deities, that it is mere foolishness of the man to worship such beings who themselves fell before him in submission. Here submission is not in the sense of devotion or supplication or adoration which acts are exclusively for God1. Evil is made apparently good - a hook of Satan In the verse (15:39) it is explained that how man falls prey to the evil deeds by the enticement of Satan. If evil appears like evil no man prefer to commit it. But Satan makes the evil appear beautiful. Thus man attracts to it and succumbs himself to the temptations of evil. If evil appears like a manifest evil, at the outset no man prefer to commit it; or at the most if he attracts to it and succumbs himself of committing it there is every possibility of desisting himself from committing it continuously... But if he begins to think the evil as good (as it is made to appear like) there is no question of discarding it but continues to do it for ever and ever. Further the verses 40-42 give a beautiful inference that man has been set at liberty either to choose to follow the guidance or the Satanic path. Repent like Adam - be not arrogant like Satan In addition to all these what the repeated narrations of Adamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s story stresses upon is that man, even if he, under any circumstances, disobeys Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commandments knowingly or ignorantly, he need not despair of the mercy of God, but shall surely be pardoned provided he turns towards God in repentance just as Adam did. Contrary to this if one becomes arrogant like Satan and does not re-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 156

pent, is the one that would be punished. Thus this important message of FORGIVENESS is repeated as many times as the story of Adam is repeated. Qur’an revealed according to the necessity of time and demand of occasion Now I would like to turn towards another aspect of the Qur’anic teachings how it presents the truths incorporated in its teachings only highlighting on the necessary points as and when deems fit. Now let us examine some Qur’anic verses --a. And this life of the world is nothing but a pastime and a sport, and the home of the hereafter - that indeed is life, if they, but knew! -Qur’an 29:64 b. And when an affliction befalls a man, he calls upon his Lord turning penitently to Him. Then when He confers upon him a favour from Himself, he forgets what he used to pray for before, and begins to assign rivals to Allah, that he may lead men astray from His way, Say, ‘Benefit thyself with thy disbelief a little while; thou art surely of the inmates of the fire’ Qur’an 39:8 c. Every soul shall taste of death. And you shall be paid in full your rewards only on the day of resurrection. So whosoever is removed away from the fire and is made to enter Heaven has indeed attained his goal. And the life of this world is nothing but an illusory enjoyment. -Qur’an 3:185 d. O my people. this life of the world is but a temporary provision; and the Hereafter is certainly the home for permanent stay. -Qur’an 40:39

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 157

e. Know that the life of this world is only a sport and a pastime and an adornment and a source of boasting among yourselves, and of rivalry in multiplying riches and children. This life is like the rain the vegetation produced whereby rejoices the tillers. Then it dries up and thou seest it turn yellow; then it becomes broken pieces of straw. And in the Hereafter there is severe punishment, and also forgiveness form Allah and His pleasure. And the life of this world is nothing but (temporary) enjoyment of deceitful things. -Qur’an 57:20 f. And we have not created the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in vain. That is the view of those who disbelieve. Woe then, to the disbelievers because of the fire. -Qur’an 38:27 g. And they will cry for help therein, “O our Lord, take us out, we will do righteous works other than those we used to do.” ‘Did we not give you a life long enough so that he who would reflect could reflect therein? And there came unto you a warner too. So taste ye the punishment; for wrong doers have no helper. -Qur’an 35:37 We have taken above seven verses from Qur’an as specimen, of which the first five verses speak about the worldly life. All these verses reveal the only fact that this worldly life is nothing but illusory, deceitful and transitory. But the last two verses appear to speak contrary to the above. I am not going to discuss on the subject of contradictions. As a matter of fact there are no contradictions at all in the Qur’an (4:82). Here my intention in quoting two kinds of seeming contradictory verses, is to pin point on the fact that how Qur’an gives its mes-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 158

sage only on the necessary point making a stress upon its primary importance towards which it invites the attention of its reader. In the first five verses it is stated that this worldly life is short and worldly comforts are illusory. But in the consecutive two verses respectively, it is stated that the heaven and the earth and what all between them were not created in vain, which speak that they are not illusory, and in the seventh verse it is stated that man had been granted a long life which speaks clearly that the life given to man is not as short as the earlier five verses imply to stress upon. These are neither contradictory verses nor the false statements; but this is the speciality of Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an in conveyance of its message which can be noticed by our discerning readers by a careful examination of the Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;anic verses as stated above. As a matter of fact every thing in the universe has been created for the use and comfort of the man only. And it is equally a truth that we are not in a state of delusion. Then how can all these things which we are enjoying can be compared as deceptive and illusory? As a matter of fact every thing is real and tangible and enjoyable. Yet what a more curious fact is that at the time when man reaches nearer to his death, all these things seemingly become to him as deceptive and illusory. Every man when he reaches to the last moment of his life, and at the time of breathing his last, begins to realize this fact that he had been only in the world of temporary enjoyment of deceitful things. Thus his life can be termed as transitory and deceptive however long life with all worldly pleasures and comforts he might have been conferred with. In the seventh verse as a reply to those sinners who would pray to send them back to the world so that they might do good works, God remarks saying as that they had been granted a life long enough; in the sense that the life of world that had been granted to them was more than enough to realize God and to follow the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 159

path shown by the prophets. Thus it is stated that they had been granted long life. This verse also infers the fact that once the man dies, he shall never be sent into the world again so as to enable to mend himself. He should act according to the teachings of the prophets while he is yet living before his death. Thus the concept of the Hindu doctrine that man goes on getteng janma after janma until he attains the moksha is refuted. Please examine sloka 2:28 of Bhagwadgeeta. The above explained few points are enough to make our discerning readers understand that how Qur’an oft-repeatedly presented its verses with a stress only on the point that time and occasion demanded. So to arrive at the complete message about any particular point or topic, the relevant verses revealed on different occasions and times must also be taken into consideration. Then only one can arrive at the complete message as regards to the necessary points. As regards to Qur’an and its unique system of presenting the message it propounds to pin point upon, we have a clear prophecy made by prophet Isaiah1 which we will discuss else where.

A NUMBER OF PROPHETS APPEARED AFTER MOSES HAD BOOKS-YET ALL FOLLOWED THE MOSAIC LAW ONLY-AN AUTHENTIC PROOF FROM QUR’AN AND BIBLE Now let us come to the point of argument. According to the contention of church, Jesus has been given a book containing Law. So we have to examine two points - those are : 1. Book given to Jesus and 2. Whether it contains new law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 160

Qur’an clearly states that Jesus has been given a Book. To this extent Qur’an narrates the statement of Jesus to have said as --- “He said, ‘I am a servant of Allah.’ He has given me the Book and made me a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:30) The claim of the church as regards to Jesus and about his giving new law basing on the above Qur’anic verse, can be acceptable, only if the church admits that according to both Qur’an and Bible, the other prophets too who were given books were law giving prophets - can it agree? Was David a law giving prophet merely because he was given a book? So is the case with Jesus and his book Surely we have sent revelation to thee, as we sent revelation to Noah and prophets after him; and we sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aron and Soloman and We gave David a book.

-Qur’an 4:163

In the above Qur’anic verse we have an evidence that David was given a Book. In the very same manner Jesus was also given a Book (under reference Qur’an 19:30). Can the church agree that David who was given a Book, gave also a new law abrogating the Mosaic Law? No. Because the Bible clearly says that David followed the Mosaic Law and at the time of his departing from the world, he charged his son Soloman that he should follow the Mosaic Law strictly. Thus we read in Bible... Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore; and shew thyself a man: And keep the charge of the Lord the God, to walk in his ways to keep his statutes, and his commandments and his judgments, and his testimonies,

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 161

as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest and wither soever thou turnest thyself. - I Kings 2:1-3

Does this above passage not clearly prove that though it is said in Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an that David was given a book, that he did not give a new law through his Book, but he himself followed the Mosaic Law and charged his son to follow it carefully after him? This is the exact case with Jesus and his book too. Just as David, though Jesus was given a Book, he followed the Mosaic Law and charged his people to follow it. Prophet Jeremiah was also given a Book. Thus we read... The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a Book.

-Jeremiah 30:1,2

Like wise prophet Ezekiel also had a Book given to him by God. Thus we read... And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me, and lo, a roll of a Book was there in. -Ezekiel 2:9

Prophet Nahum was also given a Book. The burden of Nineveh, the Book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite. -Nahum 1:1

From the foregoing points it is evident that after Moses, a number of prophets have been sent along with books. And it is needless to write that those books were light and guidance for the people. Were it not so then what was the purpose of those Books?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 162

But it is evident that no prophet had ever given any new law except as all followed the Mosaic Law which God has given through the prophet Moses. As regards to this we have substantiate information in the Bible as well as in the Gospel. Prophet David followed the Mosaic Law and he charged his son Solomon to follow it. Thus the Mosaic Law was in rule upto the times of Solomon. And then subsequently it had been in rule in the times of every prophet in succession one after another until the times of prophet Nehemiah and prophet Malachi and prophet Jesus. This implies the fact that all the prophets appeared after Moses, had followed only the law given through the prophet Moses. Thus we read in the following passages. a. ... And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest and withersoever thou turnest thyself. -I Kings 2:1-3 b. We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, which thou commandest thy servant Moses. -Nehamiah 1:7 c. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgments. -Malachi 4:4 d. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus christ. -John 1:17 Now let us examine what Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an says about the law given by Moses and the prophets after him. a. Surely we sent down the Torah (Book given to Moses) wherein was guidance and light. By it did the prophets

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 163

who were obedient to Us judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the law... -Qur’an 5:44 b. And we caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps confirming that which was revealed before him in the Torah; and we gave him the Gospel which contained guidance and light confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah and a guidance and an admonition for the God - fearing. Qur’an 5:46 c. And verily, we gave Moses the Book and caused after him the Messengers to follow in his footsteps; and to Jesus son of Mary we gave manifest signs and strengthened him with spirit of holiness... -Qur’an 2:87 d. And the Jews say ‘The christians stand on nothing’ and the christians say, ‘The Jews stand on nothing’ while they read the Book. Even thus said those who had no knowledge like what they say. But Allah shall judge between them on the day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they disagree. -Qur’an 2:113 The above four references from the Qur’an clearly show that all the prophets who appeared after Moses, (including Jesus) followed the law given through prophet Moses. And in more clear terms Qur’an narrates the declaration of Jesus, saying as --And I come confirming that which is before me namely the Torah, and to allow you some of that which was forbidden to you and I come to you with a sign from your Lord; So fear Allah and obey me.

-Qur’an 3:50

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 164

In the above verse, the clause â&#x20AC;&#x153; to allow you some of that which was forbidden to youâ&#x20AC;? does not mean to say that he had given a new law, but refers to the reformations he made concerning the invented traditions by the Jewish priests, the points which were discussed in detail in our previous pages. Not only in Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an but also in Gospel, the above declaration of Jesus has so clearly been incorporated, studying after which the church has no chance to claim that Jesus was a law giving prophet merely on the plea that he was given a Book. Think not that Iam come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

-Matthew 5:17

Church contends taht Jesus completed Mosaic law by himself and he gave new law at the time of his departure The pertinacious efforts of the church in defending that Jesus was the person about whom the prophecy under discussion most reasonably applicable to; have been dampened by our close discussions made, by keeping in view also of the fourth term of the prophecy -- that the person of this prophecy must be a law giver. But as Jesus himself having followed the then Mosaic law, by stressing the need of its observance by every one, the church has been deprived of the claim. Therefore to uphold their claim, they divert the arguments towards declaring that though Jesus had followed the Mosaic law, at the time of his departure he gave them a new testament. And they further add that when what was given by Jesus is called NEW, that which was existing prior to this became OLD; which ultimately vanished away.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 165

Thus we read ... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

Therefore it is evident that Jesus had abrogated the old law and gave a new law. So the prophecy is applicable to the person of Jesus only: they contend. The above is a passage of the letter by Paul to Hebrews (under Ref: Hebrews 8:13). This verse is the concluding opinion of Paul regarding the prophecy of Jermiah as recorded under reference Jeremiah 31:31-34 which he quoted in his above epistle (letter) under reference Hebrews 8:8-11. As a matter of fact that is a prophecy made in connection with the advent of another prophet (That prophet) through whom a new law would be given. And this is, what is being discussed all about. And we shall discuss this prophecy in detail along with some other importent prophecies in our another book ‘The Universal Prophet’. However the prophecy promises for a ‘new covenant’ while the church attributes it to the ‘New Testament’.

THE BIBLE Here one thing must be noted. The Holy Bible as it is presently available can be divided into three parts... 1. The ancient scriptures relating to the prophets appeared before the time of Jesus, which is now named as Old Testament by church, only to justify their New Testament; but it was originally known as TORAH/TALMUD. In it we have no word such as Old Testament or New Testament. Nor we have any word such as even Testament synonymously used relating to the law or the Book of Law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 166

2. That part of Book which deals with the life history of Jesus and his teachings etc., which should have as a matter of fact, been included in TORAH/TALMUD under the title of Gospel of Jesus, just as the case with all other prophets such as Haggai, Malachi etc, etc.However the church has combined the four Gospels and the Epistles and named it as ‘New Testament’. 3. The last part of the Bible, which contains the letters of the disciples (except the first book ‘Acts and the last Book of Revelation) can be called as the Book of the Epistles (letters)1. Gospel cannot be a New Testament Now let us first think of naming the Gospel as New Testament. As we know that the early scriptures were not called as ‘Testament’ there is no chance for the Gospel to be called as ‘New Testament’ merely because Jesus made a Testament therein. If they so please, they can call it only as a ‘Testament’ but not as ‘New Testament’ because this gives rise to the false notion that there was already existing a Testament which became Old Testament after the new one is made. Of course, this is what exactly the church did. We are not talking about covenants. A covenant is different from Testament which we will explain in further pages. Example : Emperor Shajahan built the Tajmahal. Did he name it as ‘New Tajmahal’? or can we call it so? No; because there was no Tajmahal existing prior to this Tajamahal built by Shajahan. Now if any one build a Tajmahal and call it as ‘New Tajmahal’ and call the existing Tajmahal built by Shajahan as ‘Old Tajmahal’ he is fully justified. This is the exact case with the Testament of Jesus too. If there were a testament existing before his time, he could have been justified to call his testament as a ‘New Testament’ and ultimately the church could have acquired the right to call the testament existing prior to Jesus as ‘Old Testament.’ But the facts are not so.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 167

Then can we expect that a prophet like Jesus could ever have given expression to mean his testament as a new one creating a misconception that there was already existing a testament before him which is made old after his new one is presented? No. Not at all. This goes to prove beyond doubt that it is only the invention of the church, but not ever mentioned by Jesus. Church tries to attribute the prophecies about that prophet to the person of Jesus As we have told earlier that the prophecy under discussion, and a number of other prophecies speak about a prophet who would bring a new law. But the church did not like to give any chance for the followers of Jesus, to look for another prophet and another law. So it became inevitable on its part to show the fulfilment in the person of Jesus himself of all the prophecies made, so as to keep the christianity unscattered. To meet this end what they have done and what they have not left undone our arguments so far made and further arguments-- all disclose. This affair of old and new testaments is the part of that attempt only. Covenant is different from testament Now let us examine the prophecy as promised in the Book of Jermiah and compare it with testament that Jesus made with his disciples, and see that how far paul is justified in concluding that the prophecy is fulfilled in Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Testament. (Hebrews 8:13) Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Jermiah 31:31

The above is a prophecy -- Now compare it with the following testament of Jesus made with his disciples.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 168

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat, This is my body, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. -Matthew 26:26-28

In the prophecy, God promises of a new covenant. But in the presumed fulfilment of it, in the person of Jesus, Jesus makes a testament. Can a covenant be attributed to a testament? Is there any relevance to the promised prophecy and the presumed new testament as Quoted above? Whether what was made by Jesus a new one or a old one is a matter to be seen later, but meanwhile let us see whether a covenant can be attributed to the ‘Testament.’ Now we have two words. 1. Testament -- Made by Jesus. (Matthew 26:26-28) 2. Covenant -- Promised by God. (Jermiah 31:31) 1. Testament : The literal meaning of the word ‘Testament’ is ‘A will.’ It can be made by any person, to come into enforcement after his death. It can be made oral or in writing. As long as the testator is alive his will cannot be put inforce. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity of the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead : otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. -Hebrews 9:16-17

2. Covenant : ‘Covenant’ means ‘An agreement’ made between two parties. This comes into effect immediately from the time it is made or from the appointed time as agreed

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 169

upon by both the parties. In this--no death of either party is necessary, as is necessary in the case of testament. And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

-Genesis 17:11-14

In the self same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house and bought with money of the stranger were circumcised with him. - Genesis 17:26-27

Covenant is a synonym for divine law And againg the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Covenantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is synonymously used for the Divine Law also. And he took the book of covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said, will we do and be obedient.

-Exodus 24:7

So readers should know while reading, the meaning of this word according to context to which it is aptly referred to. Taking into consideration of the literal definition of the words

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 170

‘covenant’ and ‘Testament’, at the outset we would like to conclude that the word ‘covenant’ either as in the sense of ‘An agreement’ or as in the sense of “Law” can in noway be attributed to ‘Testament’. As regards to the word ‘Testament’, as it is ‘a will’ made by a testator to take effect after his death, while he is yet living, even if he change the Testament already made and present a new one, the new one is the only testament which remains and will take effect after the death of its testator. Thus there will be no two testaments by one person for one deed -- new and old-- but only one. Then is it not meaningless to say as new testament? Testament was never made by God According to church, there was a testament made by God through prophet Moses. And it became old when Jesus gave his new testament. And St. Paul declared that what became old was ready to Vanish away(Hebrews 8:13). Does God ever die? No-one who dies cannot be God. God dies not, but is ever living Omnipotent, and Omniscient, - self subsistant. He begets not nor is begotten. Had God ever made a testament, he must have been dead so that His testament might take effect. As regards to this we have a clear affirmative statement of St. Paul himself about testament and testator, which reads as here under, which should also equally apply to God, had He ever made a testament. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Hebrews 9:16-17

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 171

This only logic is enough to prove that God made no testament through Moses. Testament was neither made by Moses Let us think the same in an another aspect. As God never appeared before men to make either the covenants or testaments; but what all He made, He made only through His prophets. So in consideration with such testament, the death of God is not necessary but the death of the prophet through whom a testament is made can be substituted. But the question is whether what all given through Moses, came into effect after his death or while he was yet living... while yet living only. So in this way also God made no testament through Moses. Then what was it that had been given through him? A law which was synonymously called as covenant in Jermiah 31:31. Now what we would like to ask the church is -- how far is it justified in attributing the new covenant (new law) to that of testament made by Jesus if it were really a new law (covenant)? Presumed New Testament The Bible defines the Divine Law as consisting of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commandments, ordinances, judgments etc. etc. And a testament is a quite different thing which can never be attributed to Divine law, but one will surprise to notice the efforts of church that how it tries to establesh this presumed â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;New Testamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, for covenant. ... Who (God) also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

-II Corinthians 3:6

The above passage is the part of the 2nd letter of Paul written to Corinthians. In that he writes, that he (along with some others) had been made an able apostle for the ministry of the new testament of Jesus.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 172

What is that new testament for which he was made an able minister? Paul himself provides the answer for above question as here under... Manipulation For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: This is my body which is broken for you: This do ye in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new Testament in my blood; This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. -I Corinthians 11:23-25

The above is the passage taken from the letter to Corinthians by Paul under Ref. I Cor. 11:23-25. Here it may be noted that in his above statement an attempt is made to create a misconception that he had directly been given the above testament by Jesus, or to make them think that he himself was also a partaker on the occasion of giving this presumed new testament in the night in which Jesus was betrayed. As a matter of fact neither Paul was present on that occasion, nor when Paul was made an able minister for the new Testament (as claimed by himself) Jesus was not on the earth but seated on the right hand of God in heaven (Mark 16:19). However a number of such variances and discrepancies can be seen by any careful reader of the Gospels and the Epistles. Now what our contention is that if were the giving of the new testament by Jesus a truth, it could have accumulated the highest religious importance, and then therefore there should have been no controversy among

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 173

Gospel writers, as regards to this important occasion. St. John makes no mention of this event of giving new testament in his Gospel and on the other hand he contradicted by stating that Jesus to have given them the new commandment of love. However let us not worry about the controversies between the Gospels, but let us agree that according to St.John that Jesus has given the new commandment of loving each other --- and according to St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke has given a new testament of breaking the bread in his remembrance. New Testament as presumed is not at all a new but old practice of Jews As regards to this new testament as cited by Paul in his letter to Corinthians under Ref. I Cor 11:23-25 we have the precedental event as recorded by St. Matthew under Ref. 26:26-28 and by St. Mark under Ref. 14:22-24 and by St. Luke under Ref . 22:17-20. In all the first three gospels we have the same precedant incident as quoted by Paul in his above letter to Corinthians. But what surprises one is that Paul described in it, as if it were newly given by Jesus. But on reading the precedent event as recorded in all the first three gospels under references as given above, one can find, that that ceremony to be the passover feast. Passover feast was ordained by God to Israelites as a commemorative feast of exodus of the Jews from Egypt. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye become to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, what mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 174

he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

-Exodus 12:24-27

Not a New Testament but old passover Thus we came to know that what has been described as new testament was no more than the passover feast which all the Israilites were observing in commemoration of their exodus from Egypt. Jesus, along with his disciples, was performing the same ceremonial feast, which has been by the church later on described as a new testament to establish their invented doctrine of glorification of Jesus on one hand and on the other to justify the term of giving a new law of the prophecies to the person of Jesus. To know these facts please read the following passage in which this event is recorded. In this passage we are mentioning only the verses which are relevant to the subject. (1) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, (2) ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover... (17) Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? (18) And he said, go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, the Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. (19) And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them. And they made ready the passover... (26) And as they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said, take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fatherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 175

Kingdom (Matthew 26:1-29).

This passage most evidently prove that it was not a new testament given by Jesus as church professes, but the ordinance of God which had been commanded to do in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt, which had been in practice ever since God passed over their houses in Egypt and it is still being observed by the Jews. According to gospel John. Not a New Testament but a new commandment Now let us examine the incident of giving a new commandment too as recorded in the Gospel of St. John. (1) Now before the feast of the passover... (2) And supper being ended... 4) He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. (5) After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the discipleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feet, and wipe them with the towel where with he was girded...(12) So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments and was set down again, he said unto them, know ye what I have done to you? (13) Ye call me master and Lord: and ye say well: for so I am (14) If I then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet; Ye also ought to wash one anotherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feet. (15) For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you... (34) A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (35) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:1-35).

Love each other, not a new law - but a concise comman to follow the existing Mosaic law The above incident of giving the new commandment of lov-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 176

ing each other took place only on the passover feast. But it is recorded to have been done before the feast of the passover (13:1). A careful study of the whole chapter (13) the incidents regarding his betrayal comparing with the gospels, reveal the fact that he had given this new commandment in the same night in which he was betrayed; that is to say in the evening of the passover supper. Three long chapters (14,15,16) have been incorporated in between this incident and his betrayal. All the teachings which have been incorporated in these chapters were given only in the self same night and then after his prayer to God (17 chapter complete) he reached to the brooke of cedron where he was betrayed (John 18:1). The above is one reason that how we can say that the incident of giving new commandment took place on the passover feast. And another reason is: He riseth from his supper and laid aside his garments and took a towel and girded himself.

-John 13:4

In this we have a good resemblance of eating the passover. While eating the passover oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own loin must be girded as the manner of eating explained by God. And thus shall ye eat: with your loins girded ...

-Exodus 12:11

Whether it happened on the passover feast or before is a point of secondary importance but what we primarily need is, whether it is really a new commandment given by Jesus or a concise and comprehensive command to follow the already existing law.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 177

DIVINE LAW Divine law can be classified as two main parts. 1. Faith and 2. Civil code or (code of conduct) 1. Faith : It deals with believing and worshipping the only God and believing the prophets. And observance of the rites and rituals and other spiritual matters, as enjoined upon by God through prophets. Belief in God Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

-Matthew 22:37-38

Belief in God and His prophets a. And they rose early in the morning and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa and as they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe His prophets so shall ye prosper. -II Chronicles 20:20 b. Let not your heart be troubled : ye believe in God believe also in me [Jesus]. -John 14:1 Believing in the prophet is as important and necessary as believing in God himself. And rejecting the prophet is equal to rejecting God Himself. a. ... for they have not rejected thee [prophet] but they have rejected me [God], that I should not reign over them. -I Samuel 8:7 2. Civil code (Code of conduct) : This comes under the safeguarding of human rights; such as ---

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 178

a. Rights of women : Marriage : Should not have illegitimate contacts with women but they can be kept under a legal wedlock. Divorce : Women must be protected from illegal and unjust divorcements for petty reasons. b. Inheritance of property and shares : should be made with equity according as ordained in the law. c. Human rights in General : 1. Judgments must be made with strict justice. 2. One should not bear false witness. 3. One should not acquire any thing with false accusations. 4. One should not possess othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; belongings by stealthily or forcibly or ` unjustly. etc.etc,. Transgressions and forgiveness If the first part of the Divine law is disobeyed by anybody knowingly or ignorantly and then, when realization comes, and turns towards God correcting himself with sincere penitence and prays God for his forgiveness, there is no doubt that Merciful God will surely forgive his sins. Thus we read in Ezekiel ... But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him : in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord God : and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 23

-Ezekiel 18:21-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 179

Now let us hear what Jesus said as regards to this. Ask and it shall be given to you : seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you : for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

-Matthew 7:7-8

But the case of oppression differs But the case with the second part of the law is not like that. Because it deals with the human rights. If anyone bears false witness against other, by means of which he is punished; and if any one takes othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; possessions with false accusations; and if anyone charges any woman with a calumny, and if anyone snatches away the othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights unlawfully and if anyone manhandles the other with no reason and if anyone hurts the feelings of others by calling with nicknames, or by gesture, or by sign etc. etc,. all these come under oppression. The oppressor will not be pardoned by God for his oppression unless the oppressed ones forgive him. We read in Gospels a. But I say unto you, that whosoever angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment : and whosoever shall say to his brother, RACA (in Hebrew language a term of insult) shall be in danger of the council : but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee : leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. -Matthew 5:22-24 b. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary de-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 180

liver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out of thence, till thou hast paid the utter most farthing. -Matthew 5:25-26 c. And Zachaeus stood and said unto the Lord : Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, this day is salvation come to this house... -Luke 19:89 The above are the three examples in which Jesus reiterated that the oppressor should first reconcile with whom he had behaved excessively. And at the same time Jesus also encouraged the oppressed ones to pardon those oppressors so that God might also forgive them of their tresspasses. a. And ye stand praying, forgive if ye have aught against any : that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your tresspasses. But if ye do not forgive neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your tresspasses. -Mark 11:25-26 b. For if ye forgive men their tresspasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their tresspasses, neither will your Father forgive your tresspasses. -Matthew 6:14-15 c. ... forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. -Luke 6:37 When can this reconciliation and forgiveness be possible? Only when every one realize that he should do to his fellow men what he expects from them to do to himself.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 181

Therefore all things whatsovever ye would that men would do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets. -Matthew 7:12

Can this type of realization and understanding of sacrificing everything to others that what all one expects from others to do for him be generated by means of any external influence? No. But only by means of real love which springs within the hearts; Love begets love. Love is the only source wherefrom amicable environment can be built up. Thus Jesus reiterated that every one should follow the existing law, by incorporating concisely, precisely, and comprehensively in few words by saying that they should love each other. (Thus we have a corresponding and affirmative statement in the Epistle to Romans under reference - 13:8-10) Owe no man anything; but to love one another : for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying namely, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. -Romans 13:8-10

Now we hope that our readers can understand that what Jesus has given them saying as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Love one anotherâ&#x20AC;? is not a new commandment(law) but a concise yet comprehensive teaching in a nutshell to follow the then existing Mosaic law. Instable stand of church on law Our close discussions made so far, reveal the fact that Jesus did not give any new law but he himself followed the then Mosaic law with a stress by warning his disciples and followers that they should meticulously follow the law. Despite this clear admonition

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 182

the church began to profess that Jesus gave them the new law (according to the first three Gospels) of breaking the bread in his remembrance, and (according to Gospel John) -- of loving each other. And we have in our previous pages, proved these two points to be not new law but only the parts of the old law. Thus it is made known that Jesus gave them no new law; but followed the old law just as all his predecessors did. Further what more humorous to note is that the church which has claimed that Jesus gave them the new law, went so far as to declare that Jesus has redeemed them from the curse of law. Whether a new law was given or the law was transformed as curse, none knows except the church, nay -- not even God Himself (God forbid). Is law really a curse? Read what God says about law : a. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. -Ezekiel 20:11 b. I am the Lord your God, walk in my statutes and keep my judgments and do them. -Ezekiel 20:19 c. I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. -Hosea 8:12 Now let us have a glance over a few verses in which God stresses on the need of observing the law. We have so many warnings by God as regards to the breaking of the law and its consequences as cited in various places through a number of prophets. a. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets : therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 183

Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts. -Zachariah 7:12-13 b. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But ye said, wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. -Malachi 3:7-9 c. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge : because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me : seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against me : Therefore will I change their glory into shame. Hosea 4:6-7 d. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! -Deuteronomy 5:29 e. The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled : for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away. The world languisheth and fadeth away; the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 184

therein are desolate : therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned and few men left. -Isaiah 24:3-6 f. They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes that I set before you and before your fathers. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all judah.-Jeremiah 44:10-11 g. And thou shalt say unto them, thus saith the Lord: If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened : then I will make this house like shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all nations of the earth. - Jermiah 26:4-6 h. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. -Psalms 89:30-32 Prophet Daniel laments for the transgressions done by his people. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord and God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice : therefore the curse is poured upon us and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 185

God, because we have sinned against him.

-Daniel 9:10-

And again God warns, not to walk after the imaginations of hearts neglecting the law, and reminds the consequences thereof. a. And the Lord saith, because they have forsaken my law which I set before them and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; but have walked after the imagination of their own heart and after baalim which their fathers taught them. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel. Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood and give them water of gall to drink; I will scatter them also among the heathen whom neither they nor their fathers have known; and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them. -Jeremiah 9:13-16 b. Then shalt thou say unto them, because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods and have served them and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and ye have done worse than your fathers; for behold, ye walk everyone after the imagination of his evil heart that they may not hearken unto me: Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye know not, neither ye, nor your fathers and there shall ye serve other gods day and night where I will not shew you favour; -Jeremiah 16:11-13 Further God warns, not to be partial in law; but to follow it as has been or dained. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 186

been partial in the law. -Malachi 2:9 Further God makes it clear that the priests are responsible for the disobedience of law.

a. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. -Zphaniah 3:4 b. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law. Ye have corrupted the covenant of levi, saith the Lord of hosts. -Malachi 2:8 For all these points the church may unhesitatingly say that it was the case with the people of olden days. Law was made incumbent on the people until the time of Jesus. But in the last days God raised his son (Jesus) who redeemed the mankind from the curse of law. But as a matter of fact nowhere in gospels1 can one see that Jesus to have abrogated the law and let loose the necks of christians from the yoke of law as church professes. These points have been discussed in our previous pages which we feel, not necessary to be reproduced.

APOSTLESHIP WAS RESTRICTED TO- 12 SELECTED DISCIPLES Before we know that how church transgressed the law, let us recall to our minds that how Jesus had selected his twelve disciples and granted them the apostleship and made simon Peter as chief among them to carry on his mission after him. Jesus had chosen the twelve disciples A. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve...? John 6:70

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 187

B. Then answered Peter and said unto him. Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. -Matthew 19:27-28 C. And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of desease. -Matthew 10:1 D. Then said Jesus to them again, peace be unto you; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, and when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. -John 20:21-23 The above four references very convincingly express the status of the twelve disciples. They were not ordinary disciples like others; but were chosen ones who had been appointed to judge the twelve tribes of Israelites on the day of judgment. However this point discloses the fact that the apostleship was restricted to those twelve only which further makes it clear that there is no chance for any other one to claim as the apostle of Jesus however great disciple he might be and whatever services he might have rendered to the church. Among the twelve, Simon Peter had acquired a very high and significant place Now let us recall to our minds that how Jeus was particular and curious and hence promised to build his church on the shoul-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 188

ders of Peter Simon, who was his beloved disciple and whom he had selected and appointed as his chief Apostle. Peter - the chief apostle A. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -Matthew 16:18 B. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and what soever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and what soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. -Matthew 16:19 Jesus prayed for Peter Not only this, but as Jesus had selected Peter as his chief apostle who was to lead his church after him, Jesus also prayed God to guard him against the Satanic influence so that his faith might be well protected. Thus we read in Luke... And the Lord [Jesus] said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

-Luke 22:31-32

Peter - the authorised person to lead and to feed the church And at the time of departure from the world, Jesus handed over the duty to Peter as had been promised which we read as here under. This point more convincingly admit that the reponsibility of leading the church was laid upon the shoulders of Peter only -but on none else. And therefore no one has any right to interfere in the affairs of leading the church.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 189

c. So when they had dined. Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith unto him again, the second time, simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, yea Lord : thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him third time. Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord thou knowest all things : Thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him Feed my sheep. -John 21:15-17 Present church was not built on Peter’s shoulders The question which surprises one is -- was the church really built on Peter as had been promised by Jesus? No. The early christians followed in his leadership. But just after a few years (between 15-20 years) foundation for a new church was laid which in due course began to work in par with Peter’s church which finally established the domination over Peter’s church which gradually decayed. Was Peter really incompetent to lead the church? Were he really incompetent to lead the church, could Jesus ever had selected and appointed him as his chief apostle handing him over the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No. Not at all. Did Jesus appoint Peter for this high office tentatively on temporary basis, to be dismissed after when the eminent and capable person like Paul was made available? or

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 190

Does church regard Jesus as a person with flexible mind who appointed Peter in haste with vain and vague promises such as made above and later snatched away his leadership and gave it to Paul? Obviously the answers for above questions is nothing but “ No.” Then we would like to ask the church, -- Where has the church, built on Peter and led by him gone? Present church is founded by Paul on the debris of the church of Peter On examination of the ‘Acts of apostles’ and their ‘Episties’ (the 3rd part of the Bible) it can be evident that the church has been founded on St. Paul and thus he bacame the chief leader and founder of the christianity. As regards to this let us examine some opinions of the christian scholars themselves. Machintosh very cleary expresses his opinion that the Christ of Pauline Epistles has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. This remark very convincingly admits that what Paul has preached about Jesus has really no relation with Jesus or with his teachings or with what he expected of his followers. This means Paul preached quite other than the teachings of Jesus. And further he expresses his view so deliberately that paul was the real founder of the christianity. This point very clearly admits that the church has been built on the shoulders of Paul but not on Peters’ as had been decreed by Jesus1. The Christ of Pauline Epistles has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. We need scarcely hesitate in regarding St. Paul, indeed, as the real founder of our religion. -Machintosh- The person of Jesus Page.51

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 191

Again B. W. Bacon writes in his renowned book, “Making of New Testament” in page No. 61 -- in conformity with the above view of Meckintosh in more clear terms as here under. “ Without the Pauline Gospel about Jesus, christianity could never have become more than a sect of reformed Judaism.”

This opinion of B.W.Bacon not only strengthens the above view of Mackintosh in toto but also provides an inference that Jesus had never preached a religion of his own as christianity, but he had only reformed the already existing Judaism. But contrary to this St. Paul has professed a new religion under the banner of christianity with all his self invented dogmas and doctrines. Thus the present christianity is the brainchild of Paul (Acts 11:26) and the christians are not christians but Paulines under the mask of christians. Who this Paul was -- where had Peter gone leaving the responsibility of feeding the sheep of Jesus in the hands of Paul? And how the leadership and the teachings of Peter had been superseded by Paul? All these things, we have discussed in our another tract under the title ‘The profile of Paul’. The reason for omitting these points here is - it is a very vast subject which has no relevance of course with the present arguments. Therefore we would like to quote only a few important passages written by Paul as regards to their stand on law so as to make the people understand that how far the church is justified to claim that the present main prophecy under discussion, in which a law giving prophet is promised, is applicable to Jesus himself. Read what St. Paul declares about the law. a. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son [Jesus] made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law...

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 192

-Galatians 4:4-5 b. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man [Jesus] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. -Acts 13:38-39 c. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse : for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident : for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith : but the man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law... -Galatians 3:10-13 The instable stand of the church as regards to the law and that how christian preachers forward the inconsistent and irrelevant arguments to defend themselves and to prove that Jesus has given them a new law and abrogated the old one, and that how they try to attribute the prophecy under discussion to the person of Jesus -all these points have been dealt with in our preceding arguments comprehensively which all prove that Jesus neither has abrogated the old law nor has given a new law. And that therefore this prophecy even under the fourth term (ie) â&#x20AC;&#x153;He who was to come should give a new law,â&#x20AC;? in no way can be attributed to the person of Jesus. The compendium of our arguments made so far is --That this prophecy (Matthew 3:11-12) has been divided into four main terms as follows : 1. He about whom this prophecy was made, should baptize people in Holy Spirit only - but it is proved beyond doubt that Jesus never baptized in Holy Spirit.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 193

2. Were John the prophesying person and that it were about Jesus only -- Jesus should have appeared only after John, because the prophecy stresses saying as “He that cometh after me.” But Jesus was the contemporary of John. 3. The one about whom this prophecy was made, must be greater than the prophesying person, as the prophecy lays down an important term saying as - “greater than I.” If were John the prophesying person as is the claim of church --- Jesus was not proved to be greater than John; but was a prophet equivalent to him in all respects. 4. The person of this prophecy must be a law giver. But Jesus was found to be only an annotator and follower of the then existing law. Keeping in view of all these four points our comprehensive arguments made so far not only proved that John was not the prophesying person but was also detected that not even one term of the prophecy is found to be applicable to the person of Jesus. And also so many points as regards to the misconceptions and misunderstandings of the church have been discussed. And at the same time, from our hints as pointed out in our arguments in various angles, it is predictable that this might have been prophesied by Jesus himself about the advent of ‘That prophet’ that is the comforter who was to come after him. As regards to this we have so many other prophecies too which all prove this fact, out of which we shall discuss some important ones in our another book under caption ‘The Universal Prophet’.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 194

THE PROPHECY FULFILLED IN MOHAMMED

HAS BEEN PROPHET

First term of the prophecy When once it is proved that the prophecy under discussion is not the one which was prophesied by John about Jesus; but by Jesus himself about the advent of his successor, the comforter, we have to examine whether all the four terms of the prophecy have been fulfilled in him. That Prophet - The Comforter There appeared a man in Arabia by name Mohammad. He was born in 570 AD. And when he was about 40 years proclaimed that he was receiving the revelation from God through the Angel Gabriel. That is to say, in the year 610 AD, that he declared himself as a prophet of God. Baptism In our previous arguments, we have explained that what the Baptism, according to christian terminology, is meant for. This is an allegiance taken from the people, by the prophet of the time, making them to accept his prophet-hood, and to make them believe in only True God and to abide by the laws given by God through his prophets. Baptism and external signs While baptizing people, prophets used to adopt some external signs such as immersing in water etc. etc,. which were as a matter of fact, nothing to do with the real baptism as explained above, except as a sign useful to recognize the prophet as one that had been prophesied by his preceding prophet, just as in the case of this prophet whose external sign was to baptize in Holy Spirit.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 195

Baptism in Holy Spirit According to the first term of the prophecy he was to baptize people in Holy Spirit. Was (or is) it any material known as Holy Spirit, just as water in the case of Jesus’ baptism? No. but the allegiance taken by this prophet is figuratively described as ‘Baptism in Holy Spirit’ This is how let us examine. By the time of the advent of prophet Mohammad every soul became corrupted and defiled. Every nation began to worship other deities beside only TRUE GOD. Polytheism and idolatry was at rampant. Saint worship - Grave worship became a common practice of worship along with the worship of true God. As a matter of fact every prophet of God was sent to the people, only to make them desist from the worship of any other being beside only true God. Then a quesion may logically be posed that what is the significance of this prophet more than any other prophet that appeared prior to him. We do agree that all prophets were sent for that purpose only. As regards to the conveyance of message what all other prophets did, the same did prophet Mohammad too. Then what is the speciality in this prophet as to make mention of him as a one that baptizes in holy spirit? This figurative sign of baptism in holy spirit was (is) helpful only to identify that prophet as the real one of whom as prophesied by his forerunner, Jesus. That’s all. Holy Spirit according to context So let us know what meant by holy spirit and baptism in holy spirit. Holy = Sacred, Pure Spirit = Soul Holy Spirit means, the spirit or soul transformed as sacred and pure. Baptism in holy spirit means, to baptize one in such a soul which has been transformed into sacred and pure. Why and

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 196

how the soul was (is) to be transformed into Holy one? As we told earlier that by the time of the advent of that prophet (Mohammad) the entire mankind was groping in the darkness of polytheistic influence. They were worshipping so many gods beside the true God. Thus their souls were corrupted and defiled. No doubt that the situation of every nation at the time of the appearance of every prophet more or less was same as this. Baptism in Holy Spirit declared The prophet, Mohammad began to preach the word of God which reads as here under. LAA ILAAHA ILLALLAH MOHAMMAD-URRASOOLULLAH The above is the transliteration of the Arabic text which means -- â&#x20AC;&#x153; There is no deity save God. Mohammad is the messenger of God.â&#x20AC;? In this way his baptism started with negation, denial of any other deity. Thus by the refusal of any deity the souls were (are) purified and made sacred. In other words, they became empty and free from the influence and governance of any deity or being. And this is, in christian terminology prophesied as baptism in holy spirit. As we have already told that this was (is) the external sign of baptizing people of that prophet, which was (is) useful to recognize him as the same one as that had been prophesied by his predecessor Jesus. Thus after sweeping off the place from the heart, for the worship of any deity by refusal by pronouncing (LAA ILAAH) there is no being worthy for worship, the hearts become holy and are transformed as sacred in which the belief in only true God is infused. This act is known as baptism in the Holy Spirit. If baptism in Holy Spirit as described above is, so simple a process, a curious question may cross in the mind that why Jesus

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 197

could not adopt this process. Then the same question may be posed logically as regards to John also if he were the prophesying person - about the advent of Jesus. Prophets could not do any thing of their own accord, even good. They had no choice except as following as had been commanded by God. Thus we read from the following : a. ... I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own mind : but what the Lord saith that I will speak? Numbers 24:12-13 b. And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all things at thy word. -I Kings 18:36 The underlined verses from the above passages speak that prophets had no right whatever to do at their own accod except of obeying as had been commanded to them. So according as the bidding of God, Jesus baptized people in water and that prophet (Mohammad) baptized in Holy Spirit at their appointed times. Thus the first term of the prophecy that, he that was to come after Jesus should baptize people in holy spirit is fulfilled in the person of prophet Mohammad. Second term of the prophecy As regards to the second important term of the prophecy that the prophet had to come only after the prophesying person. It is evident from the history that prophet Mohamad was born after 570 years after Jesus; and began his mission in 610 AD. Thus

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 198

the second term of the prophecy was also fulfilled in the person of prophet Mohammad. Third term of the prophecy According to the third important term of the prophecy, he that was to come must be greater than the one that had prophesied. Therefore when once it is agreed that this prophecy was not the one foretold by John about Jesus, but by Jesus himself about his successor who was to come after him, the comparison between the performances and the results achieved by, and the capabilities in discharging the entrusted works of Jesus and his successor (the comforter - Mohammad) became imperative so as to know whether prophet Mohammad was greater than prophet Jesus. Because the prophecy under discussion underlines the emphasis saying as -- “ He that cometh after me is greater than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.”

Exaggeration of the church Had the church not been under the impression that this had been prophesied by John about Jesus, the derogatory and defamatory words such as ---” I am not worthy to bear his shoes” would not have been incorporated in the original text1, and if they were not really found in the original text, the church would have added them latter so as to exalt the person of Jesus more than any one else, as it regards Jesus as every thing for them. However as a result of their misconception about this prophecy to have been prophesied about Jesus, such defamatory words to one’s own status such as these, are still appearing in the gospel, however which we have nothing to do with, for as a matter of fact the prophets were not sent to bear the shoes of one another so as to calculate themselves if they were really worthy of bearing the shoes of the other ones. Now let us examine some Qur’anic verses as regards to the prophets:

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 199

Prophets were sent to every people and nation A. And for every people there is a messenger, ... 10:47 B. Verily, we have sent thee (Mohammad) with truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and as a warner; and there is no people to whom a warner has not been sent. -35:24 The above two referred verses clearly point out to the fact that God had sent His prophets to every people and to every nation which evidently proves the fact that there is no place where a prophet had not been sent. And further Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an emphasises as follows : a. Surely We have sent revelation to thee (Mohammad) as We sent revelation to Noah and the prophets after him: and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and Jonah and Aron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book. And We sent messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee and Allah spoke to Moses particularly. Messengers bearers of glad tidings and warners, so that people may have no plea against Allah after the coming of the messengers. And Allah is Mighty and Wise. Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an 4:163-165 According to the above verses, Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an reveals the following points.... I. that prophets were sent to people so that after coming of the prophet, people might have no plea against God. These prophets were messengers of God who gave glad tidings and warned the people against the day of judgment.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 200

II. that some names of the prophets were mentioned, but there appeared a number of other prophets too whose names were not mentioned. III. Keeping in mind the earlier verses of Qur’an as quoted above, it can be evident, that prophets were sent to all people and all nations. Thus the message of God was sent to all mankind, through various prophets, in various periods as and when the time and necessity demanded. IV. And further stress is made by saying that, prophets came from God with a message to worship Him alone and the same fundamental message was revealed through all the prophets. And further Qur’an instructs: Say ye : “ We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and His children and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to all other prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between any of them; and to Him we submit ourselves.”

-Qur’an 2:136

And above verse can be divided into two parts. The first part which reads --I. from - say ye: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us... To - and what was given to all other prophets from their Lord. This reveals the fact that all the prophets came from God with the same message. Therefore one should believe God and all His prophets who gave the same message1, except Law. This is further stressed by the second part which reads -II. we make no difference between any of them This means - We believe in all the prophets as they all were sent from God with only one purpose of the conveyance of the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 201

same message. Thus we make no difference either in their persons or in their message. To us, according to Quraan, all prophets are as holy and truthful as prophet Mohammad himself. Then does it mean that the prophecy which speaks the greatness of his succesor as prophesied by Jesus is false? No. Not at all. This is how examine the following example : An elementary school student cannot make difference between any of the teachers who teach him whether they be elementary grade teachers or secondary grade teachers, or post graduates. Because he wants his bowl of elementary education and no more than that. But as a matter of fact the status of every teacher varies from one to another according to the rank one possesses. But a student cannot discriminate the status of teachers in their personal capacity but regards, and as a matter of fact should regard all of them as coequals in view of his necessary teaching. Exactly in the same manner we make no difference between any of the prophets and their message, as they were all co-equals in the conveyance of the message of God to the mankind. Yet their ranks were different from one another. This is what Jesus said in his prophecy about ‘That prophet’ saying as - ‘He that cometh after me is greater than I’. And Qur’an confirms the variation in ranks of the prophets stating as follows: These Messengers have We exalted, some of them above others : among them there are those to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus son of Mary clear proofs and stregthened him with the spirit of holiness ---

-Qur’an 2:253

So also we can see the superiority of Samuel over some prophets of his time, standing over them as their leader please refer I Samuel 19:20.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 202

Now let us compare the capabilities of prophet Jesus and prophet Mohammad and examine their achievements of their entrusted work keeping in view of the favours conferred upon them so as to determine the greatness of prophet Mohammad over prophet Jesus as had been prophesied. Testimony by spiritual personalities in favour of Jesus, in addition to the scriptural prophecy - a boon a. The mother of Jesus - Mary : Even before he was conceived of, his mother was informed by the angel of God as here under: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David: and the virginâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest: and he Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David : And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee: and therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God. And behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also canceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 203

shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. -Luke 1:26-38

Thus Mary was informed by the angel of God that a prophet of God was about to appear among Israelites through her womb. In this way Mary was the first person who knew very well who that Jesus was. She might have definitely announced this fact before people and propagated even before Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; birth and also after, which could have gained a wide popularity all over the surroundings even before his birth. b. And the second person to witness about Jesus was Joseph the espoused husband of Mary. He was also informed by the angel of God in his dream about Jesus even before his birth. Now the birth of Jesus christ was on this wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought of these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son : and he called his name Jesus. -Matthew 1:18-25

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 204

Thus Joseph was another strong witness who might have spread this news all over the surroundings. Thus Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; being a prophet of God, could have won a great popularity even before he was born. c. The third witness about Jesus was Elisabeth the wife of Zacharias. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste unto a city of Judah; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb : and Elisabeth was filled with Holy Ghost. And she spake out with a laud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me. For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. -Luke 1:39-45

Could Elisabeth ever have remained herself dumb without expressing before people that what great a thing that Mary was going to bring forth through her womb? Thus Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fame could never had been remained unpopularized. d. The wise people : The group of these wise people who came from the east to Jerusalem were directed by the star to the place where infant Jesus was. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, hehold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, where is the born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are came to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled and all

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 205

Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where christ should be born. And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judah : for thus it is written by the prophet. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethleham, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they saw the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him : and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

-Matthew 2:1-12

The wise men were directed by the star to the place where young child Jesus was. Was it an ordinary thing which could not have been widely publicised? e. Shepherds : And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, fear not: for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a saviour, which is christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 206

swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of heavenly host praising God, and saying Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another , let us now go even unto Bethleham, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste and found Mary, and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned glorifiying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

-Luke 2:8-20

Shepherds were informed by the angel of God that a saviour (Jesus) was born. And the necessary information as regards for his identification was also provided. At the very same time the hosts of the heaven along with the angel, began to praise the Lord who had sent a saviour for them. Was it an ordinary sign which could make the shepherds keep quiet without giving wide publicity about Jesus? Thus Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; popularity was made known abroad which point also can be seen in the above passage itself. f. Simeon : And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel : and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s christ. And he came by the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 207

spirit into the temple : and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law. Then he took him up in his arms and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against ; (yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. -Luke 2:25-35

g. Anna - Prophetess. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser : She was of a great age and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity, and she was a widow of about four scrore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks like wise [like Simeon] unto the Lord, and spake of him [Jesus] to all them that looked for redumption in Jerusalem.

-Luke 2:36-38

The words spoken about Jesus by Simeon and the prophetess Anna could not have gone ineffective without creating an impression in the minds of people that a great redeemer was sent to them. Thus Jesus had acquired a spiritual recognition by people while he was yet a babe. h. Above all, when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven was heard which declared Jesus as a one beloved of God, was the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 208

highest boon on Jesus. ... Thou art my beloved son : in thee I am well pleased. -Luke 3:22

This supernatural witness of the voice from heaven which declared Jesus as one beloved of God, was the highest boon on Jesus. Thus all these witnesses were helpful in making the people know who that Jesus was. Thus by the time he started his ministry, Jesus acquired a great popularity among people as a prophet of God. In this way, these witnesses were not only favourable in easing the task of Jesus, but also helpful a lot in lessening his labours in making the people believe on him as a prophet of God. Despite all these, Jesus could not achieve the good results. Even without such witnesses as conferred upon Jesus, prophet Mohammad could successfully achieve the objective for which he had been appointed. And this was the first reason why Jesus in his prophecy described prophet Mohammad as one greater than himself. Miracles - a special boon conferred upon Jesus ii. Jesus was given a number of miracles : a. Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. -John 4:48 The above verse very rightly point out that the prophets were given signs and miracles to make the people believe on them as the prophets of God. b. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin ; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. John 15:24

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 209

This verse speaks that no other prophet had ever been given as many great miracles as that had been given to Jesus. c. But though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him. -John 12:37 This is an authentic proof that Jesus inspite of the favour of miracles conferred upon him, that he could not make people believe on him. Thus the very purpose was defeated. While prophet Mohammad even without miracles conquered the hearts of millions. This may be the second reason that why Jesus in his prophecy praised him as greater than himself. The community of Jesus - under law and order iii. Law and order : a. ... The chief priests answered, we have no king but caesar. -John 19:15 b. And when they have bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to pontius pilate the governor. Matthew 27:2 c. And the Soldiers led him away into the hall called praetorium... -Mark 15:16 The above three verses speak the fact that the community in which Jesus was sent, was under the rule of king caesar and it was being governed by the appointed governors and his army. Thus the place given to Jesus for his ministry was under law and order. Yet he could not succeed. Arab was not under law and order But the situation and circumstances prevailing at the place where prophet Mohammad first started his ministry were quite different. Arabs were a community which had no king nor any govern-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 210

ment. There was no army to maintain law and order. Thus the place where prophet Mohammad started his mission, was without law and order where every arrogant miscreant was an independent king. Arab - a barbarous and lawless community They were so superstitious that there was no comparision of any other community. They were so cruel that they became exemplary to the satanic world. To gain the wordly ends they never hesitated even to sacrifice their own children at the altars of their idols. In the barbarous and lawless community such as this, one can imagine that how horrible and adventurous task was it to preach against their idols and to invite them towards the worship of only true God. Kudos to prophet Mohammad who came out all victorious. This was the third reason why one can attribute this prophecy of Jesus saying as â&#x20AC;&#x153; He that cometh after me is greater than Iâ&#x20AC;? to the person of prophet Mohammad. Jews - a community who were believers in only true God iv. Jesus was sent to a nation who were not polytheists and idolaters but believers in only true God. Let not your heart be troubled : Ye believe in God, believe also in me.

-John 14:1

But, alas! Jesus could not make them believe on him as a prophet of God sent to them. Arabs were polytheists and idolaters But the case with prophet Mohammad was quite different. The Arab (Mecca) where he first started his mission of preaching was, the centre of all kinds of polytheistic practices and idolatry where they used to worship 360 idols with all kinds of superstitions. But the preaching of prophet Mohammad brought among them a miraculous change. They shunned idolatry. They broke the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 211

bondage of superstitions. Not only they accepted the prophet-hood of Mohammad but also spread into many parts of the world with the message that there was no deity except only one true God and Mohammad was the messenger of God. This is the fourth reason why prophet Mohammad is termed as a greater prophet than prophet Jesus. Jews were having a divile law of Moses v. Israelites were a community which had their divine law given through prophet Moses. They were believers in only one true God. But they were following some traditions which were innovated by their forefathers; and they neglected the law and were not following in its perspective. So Jesus was sent to reform and to make them follow the real law and also to make them believe on him as a prophet of God. Simply because his teachings and reformations were not in concordance with their invented traditions, they did not accept Jesus as a prophet and on the other hand tried to make an end of him. What made them to reject Jesus and his teachings is not the thing that we are particular about, but what we primarily need to point out is the fact that there was no difference between the religion practised by Jews and that of taught by Jesus in any matter except (purely except) regarding some reformations. This reveals the fact that how simple was the task entrusted to Jesus - yet he could not succeed. Dark nation became torch - bearers ...whereas the case with prophet Mohammadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission was not so simple. He was sent(first) to the nation where barbarism was at the peak. Ploytheism and idolatry were their religion. Superstitions were their law. Arson, looty, debauchery and rape were the hobbies. Burying alive their female children was an act of honour and pride. Intoxicants were substituted for water. Blood

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 212

shed and gambling were their games. And there was no law and order of the country except the law of jungle. One can imagine, in view of the work entrusted to Jesus as described above, that how inconceivably horrible, and incomparably greater task was it that was given to prophet Mohammad to invite such a nation towards the worship of only true God releasing from the bondage of superstitions and to make them penitent over their heinous wicked deeds. The history bears record in golden letters that how such a dark nation became torch bearers of all that which had been expected of prophet Mohammad. So this is the fifth point which speaks of the greatness of prophet Mohammad over prophet Jesus. vi. Divine Battles Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I am not come to send peace, but a sword.

-Matthew 10:34

The above verse spoken by Jesus clearly means to say -- â&#x20AC;&#x153; Think not that I have come to compromise with all what you do in the name of religion which actually have no religious sanction but to curb away all such activities by force of sword.â&#x20AC;? Thus Jesus was curious to fight the religious battles to curb away the anti - religious traditions and practices of Israelites. But having no sufficient man power (desciples) he could not perform and at the same time what all efforts he did, became futile. While Prophet Mohammad fought a number of defencive battles as well as to curb away the anti - social elements. In these battles he defeated the enemy and came out all victorious. This is the sixth reason why he was termed as greater than prophet Jesus. vii. Theocracy It means that men must rule on earth according to the laws given by God. Thus the vicegerency of men for God prevails on

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 213

earth. In other words it is known as ‘Kingdom of God’ on earth. Jesus prayed and asked his disciples to pray God for the kingdom of God that it should come and prevail on earth. Thus we read And he said unto them, when ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. -Luke 11:2

And again he assured that it would come very shortly by force. Thus we read And he said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. -Mark 9:1

Jesus departed with a fond hope for the kingdom of God on earth while praying and expecting for it curiously. As has been prophesied, after Jesus, prophet Mohammad could establish the kingdom of God in almost in many parts of the earth even while he was alive, which afterwards spread to a greater extent. This was the seventh reason which help to attribute to the person of prophet Mohammad of the prophecy of Jesus which reads as “ He that cometh after me is greater than I.” viii. Mohammad - A universal prophet Until as the time of prophet Mohammad all the former prophets were sent to a particular nation or a tribe or a country. The rites and ceremonies were also given to them according as suitability of that particular nation or tribe. Some times some prophets were sent just as reformers - or annotators of the already existing law given through their preceding or former prophets. However it was in the plan of God to raise, at last, a universal prophet1 with a universal law which suits to the entire mankind and practicable at

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 214

any part of the world, which governs until as the world remains. As regards all above points we have a good reference, which had been prophesied through the prophet Ezekiel, quoted as here under. And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two nations; neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detastable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd: They shall also walk in my judgments and observe my statutes and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, where in your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children; and their childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s children for ever; and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sancturary in the midst of them for ever more; My tebernacle also shall be with them; Yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever more. -Ezekiel 37:22-28

The above passage is a prophecy made through prophet Ezekiel in connection with the prophet, Mohammad. But the church attributes this prophecy also to the person of Jesus.We have taken

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 215

up this corresponding passage to show that how it agrees with our points. As we said, this passage agrees that there must be --a. One universal prophet, And b. One universal divine law which shall be in rule till the end of the world. These two points further give rise --That the teachings thus given should be complete and perfect. In other words the religion in the time of that prophet must be perfected. Jesus was sent only to a community known as israelites a. Was Jesus a universal prophet? was he sent for the entire mankind? No. He was sent only to a nation known as Israelitesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Jewsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) twelve tribes. Jesus while sending his disciples for propagation purpose, strictly warned them that they should not go to any other people except the Israelites(Jews). ... Commanded them saying Go not into the way of the gentiles and into any city of the samaritans enter ye not; But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. -Matthew 10:5-6

why so he commanded, clarifies he further as here under. But he [Jesus] answered and said, Iam not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

-Matthew 15:24

Thus his jurisdiction was small and limited to Israelites; Yet he could not succeed in his objectives but on the other hand he was betrayed and handed over to the Pilate the Governor. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 216

him, sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

-John 18:33-35

Prophet Mohammad for entire mankind While, prophet Mohammad was sent to the entire mankind. Thus he became The Universal Prophet. And he could succeed in his mission. And we have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and as a warner for all mankind... -Qur’an 34:28

Thus prophet Mohammad was favoured with an extra boon of being a world prophet which speaks his greatness over prophet Jesus. Thus the term of the prophecy ‘He that cometh after me is greater than I’ is applicable to the person of prophet Mohammad. Universal new law given through prophet Mohammad b. New law is another special boon conferred upon prophet Mohammad. Did Jesus give a new law? No. He followed the then existing Mosaic law like all his preceding (former) prophets. Jesus says- “ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” -Matthew 5:17

But prophet Mohammad gave a new law which substituted all the then governing laws in every country and nation. “Thus the law given by prophet Mohammad is a theocratic, spiritual and social divine law which has been given to govern the entire world until the end of the world. Does this point not exalt the status of prophet Mohammad more than prophet Jesus? Then does the prophecy ‘He that cometh after me is greater than I’ not aptly applicable to prophet Mohammad?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 217

c. Mohammad - A final prophet. Jesus was a forerunner of prophet Mohammad. 1. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. -Matthew 3:11 It is an axiomatic fact from our arguments so far made. 2. And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he [Jesus] ye have heard of me. -Acts 1:4 3. If ye love me[Jesus] keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. -John 14:15-16 4. But the comforter, which is the holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26 5. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you.

-John 16:7

From the above verses it is evident that Jesus had prophesied about his successor. Thus Jesus was a forerunner of prophet Mohammad. Prophet Mohammad was the seal of prophets, that means, a final prophet. After him no prophet comes nor prophecy is made. ... but he (Mohammad) is the messenger of Allah and the seal of prophets;...

- Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an 33:40

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 218

As regards to the seal of prophecy we have a similar reference made in connection of the last prophet in the Bible too. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the trasgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the visions and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

-Daniel 9:24

(This prophecy has been discussed in our another book The Universal Prophet) Thus prophet Mohammad remains as a final prophet and final authority over the religion of God which has been coming right from the beginning through all the prophets. This point also discloses the fact that the prophecy ‘He that cometh after me is greater than I’ is applicable to the person of prophet Mohammad. d. Mohammad - And his perfect religion: The religion was perfected in the time of prophet Mohammad, because he was sent as a world prophet and as a seal of prophecy, which means that after him no prophet ever comes nor the prophecy can be revealed. Qur’an declares as hereunder --... This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion. Qur’an 5:3

It does not mean that the earlier peoples and prophets were given imperfect religion. No. The religion of all prophets was always perfect, and was one and the same. Whenever there was pollution in the religion, irreligion predominated the religion. In a

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 219

situation such as this God used to send reformatory information and message to the prophets of the respective times. Thus the messages what all God had sent for the reformation of the religion and self edification of the prophet were felt no more necessary as the last prophet Mohammad was sent after whom there comes no prophet and no guidance. In this way only, it is said that “the religion was perfected in the time of that prophet and completed God’s favour upon mankind and chosen Islam as religion (Islam means peace and submission to God). Now examine what Jesus says in confirmation with the above. Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but what soever he shall hear, that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come. -John 16:13

The above verse most authentically speak that the successor of Jesus who was to come after him would lead the people into all truth. In other words that he would give a perfected religion. Further we have so many other verses spoken by Jesus which strengthen our above points. As a matter of fact these are all the prophecies said about the advent of prophet Mohammad; which we will discuss in our other book entitled ‘The Universal Prophet’. But we have taken up these references here just to support to the required subject. a. ... That he may abide with you for ever. -John 14:16 This is most stressingly said to mean as saying that the teachings given by his successor should prevail until the end of the world. b. ... he shall teach you all things... -John 14:26 This is another testimony of Jesus, that in the time of that prophet(Mohammad) the religion would be perfected. The follow-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 220

ing points are note worthy which confer extra privilege to the honour of prophet Mohammad. 1. His being the successor of Jesus and Jesus being his forerunner. 2. His being the prophet for the entire mankind whereas all other prophets were sent only to some tribes, races, nations and communities. 3. His being the final prophet after whom no prophet ever comes which makes him as the final authority over the religion. 4. Perfection of religion in his period and thus the perfected religion which prevails until the end of the world makes him supreme head and premier of the religion of God which had been coming right from the beginning of the world. These are some privileges of prophet Mohammad which made prophet Jesus to proclaim deliberately as here under; Nevertheless I tell you the truth, It is expedeient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the comforter will not come... -Johnh 16:7

Do all these points not prove that prophet Mohammad is greater in whose case prophet Jesus had prophesied saying as ... He that cometh after me is greater than I ?

And again, in clear terms, Jesus admits that how successfully his successor could discharge his entrusted job from the following passage. And when he is come, he will reprove the world, of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. ... of sin because they believe not on me ... of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye see me no more.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 221

... of the judgment because the prince of this world is judged. -John 16:8-11

A careful examination of the above passage reveals the fact that what Jesus could not do, the successor of Jesus had done successfully - in the above passage, he mentions the reasons for his failure in discharging the entrusted work. And also assures that how his successor would succeed in his entrusted job. The one who came out successful is really greater than he that had failed in discharging his duty. Therefore â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;He that cometh after me is greater than Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; can unhesitatingly be attributed to the person of prophet Mohammad. As according to the fourth term of the prophecy, the prophet that was to come after Jesus should give a new law. From the above arguments it is evident that prophet Mohammad has given a new law, therfore the prophecy in all its four main terms, has been fulfilled in the person of prophet Mohammad. The foregoing few verses which we have produced in support of our argument, are taken from an another prophecy of Jesus about the advent of prophet Mohammad, after him. But the church twisted the prophecy and presented it in such a way as it became ambiguous. The biased readers cannot perceive that this is said about prophet Mohammad who was to come after him. And on the other hand to divert from the real understanding it attributes all the specified qualities as mentioned in the prophecy to the person of the Holy Ghost with a title of comforter. The literal meaning of comforter is a person or thing that brings consolation or he that helps1. But what we would like to pinpoint is, the church attributes this prophecy to the person of the Holy Spirit who has ever been present right from the beginnig. But the prophecy is vivid in explaining that there was a person to come after Jesus which point rules out the notion of church in attributing these verses of the prophecy to the person of Holy Ghost.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 222

SOME EXCERPTS OF ANOTHER PROPHECY BY JESUS Now let us examine the verses one by one. A. And I will pray my Father, and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever. -John 14:16 He shall give you means God shall give you. It is admitted by the former phrase of the same verse which reads as - ‘I will pray my Father...’ And hence the God shall give you another comforter the point of which illuminates on two points. 1. Thus it speaks of one to come in the then following future only, after Jesus, but in noway can be attributed to the person of Holy Ghost who has ever been present right from the beginning. 2. Another comforter: Were it said about the Holy Ghost himself and if that comforter were really applicable to Holy Ghost himself who has ever been present, the word another should not have been associated with ‘comforter’ (i.e) as ‘another comforter’ since only ‘comforter’ suffices to convey its meaning. The word ‘another’ clearly means as saying that it is not said about the one who has ever been present but about some one to come. We quote below the passages which all speak about the Holy Ghost for your perusal. Holy Ghost is familiarly known as spirit, spirit of God and spirit of truth. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep; And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. -Genesis 1:1-2

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 223

This speaks that the Holy Ghost was present even before the creation of mankind. If the word ‘comforter’ of our discussion is applicable to this Holy Ghost, he should not have been discriminated as ‘another comforter’ but should have been said as “the same comforter which is the Holy Ghost.” 2. And Pharaoh said unto his servants, can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is ? -Genesis 41:38 3. And I have filled him [Bazleel] with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and in understanding and in knowledge and in all manner of workmanship. -Exodus 31:3 4. And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes, and the spirit of God came upon him. -Numbers 24:2 5. Then Samuel took the horn of oil and annointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of God came upon David from that day forward, so Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. -I Samuel 16:13 6. And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded. -II Chronicles 15:1 7. And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee [Elijah] that the Spirit of Lord shall carry thee whither I know not... -I Kings 18:12 8. And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. -I Samuel 19:20

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 224

9. Neither will I hide my face anymore from them: for I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel saith the Lord God. -Ezekiel 39:29 10.And his father Zachrias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied saying... -Luke 1:67 11.For he [John] shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb. -Luke 1:15 12.And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. -Luke 1:41 13.And the angel answered and said unto her [Mary] the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee... -Luke 1:35 14.And behold there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. -Luke 2:25 Holy Ghost has been ever present - so the word ‘another’ does not qualify to Holy Ghost but to some other We have quoted above fourteen passages as specimen to show that the Holy Ghost was on every prophet of God, including the ancient prophets and the latest such as John and Jesus. Then does the word ‘another’ not denote for someone other than the Holy Ghost himself who has ever been present? There cannot be two persons of Holy Ghost so as to explain that this Holy Ghost whom Jesus promises about, is the second one or another one. Therefore the phrase ‘another comforter’ stands for another prophet on whom there descends the Holy Spirit as he did descend on the previous prophets. The role of a prophet and of the Holy Ghost is - he brings the necessary information and message from God Almighty to the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 225

prophets of the respective times, for their self edification or message necessary for the reformation of the community. Now I would like to illuminate on the following points: According to church comforter means Holy Ghost. It is explained that both comforter and the Holy Ghost are one and the same person. If we accept this intepretation to be correct, we have to interpret the phrase ‘another comforter’ under discussion as ‘another Holy Ghost’ - this is because the word comforter has been followed by the word ‘another’. Does the church accept this? And again from the above quotations we came to know that the Holy Ghost was present on the ancient prophets as well as later prophets such as John and Jesus. What all, a prophet speaks to his people, speaks only by the dictation of the Holy Ghost1. By the time Jesus was giving them the glad tidings of a comforter, let us remember that the Holy Ghost was present upon him: That means Jesus was present and at the same time Holy Ghost was also present. In a situation such as this, if Jesus said, God would give another comforter, does it not convey to mean as saying God shall give you (some) another comforter? Another comforter cannot be interpreted to mean as another Holy Ghost but convincingly be interpreted to mean as another prophet (i.e) another prophet on whom remains or descends the Holy Ghost. God elects prophets from among the people and sends the Holy Ghost on the prophets with a message who dictates it to the prophets of the times and they in turn explain the message to the people. This was how the message of God came to peoples of different nations1. However this leads to conclude that the prophet whom the prophecy introduces as comforter must be one on whom the Holy Ghost was to descend and teach.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 226

Accordingly prophet Jesus had foretold about the advent of a prophet after him sying ‘another comforter.’ And the clarification of the word ‘comforter’ is given in the verse which reads as “But the comforter (which is) the Holy Ghost2.” Here we find the ellipsis ‘which is’ as put in brackets. Ellipsis cannot be the part of text but the word or words added to make complete sense of the verse. So it is the product of the gospel writer or of the church which is not infallible. Let us remember that in the biblical presentation of the words, the relative pronoun ‘which’ is used to mean ‘who’. For instance : And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. -Matthew 23:9

Therefore ‘which’ of the last phrase can be substituted by ‘who’. Keeping this point in view the elliptical words under discussion ‘which is’ may be replaced to read as ‘who is’. Then the phrase reads as “But the comforter who is the Holy Ghost.” Now the elliptic ‘who’ must be changed to objective case as ‘whom’ followed by extra ellipsis ‘on’. Then the complete elliptical order comes as ‘on whom is’. Now read the complete clause. “But the comforter on whom is the Holy Ghost.” Now this goes in conformity with our argument. This explains in clear terms that there was to come another comforter (prophet) on whom the Holy Ghost was to descend - a natural and general process of a prophet of receiving the message from God through the Holy Ghost1. B.But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. -John 14:26

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 227

Comforter means not the Holy Ghost 1. From the above passage the phrase ‘the Father will send...’ evidently speak that it is not prophesied about one who was already present in his own time, but about one to come after him- Jesus, the prophesying person. This is another substantiating point to prove that the comforter means not the Holy Ghost as church interprets but some other person on whom the Holy Ghost remains as we interpret. Here one may object saying - How the term ‘the Father will send ...’ applicable to some other person only and does not attract to the person of Holy Ghost, who was already present merely because it is said “ the Father will send” keeping in view of the future tense? Let us for example take the wind, an entity which has been present right from the beginning and continues for ever. Simply because it is said of it ‘the Father will send...’ can it be supposed as separate wind other than that which is already existing? wind is always one and the same entity even if it was of past or is of present or of future. It is an ever existent entity. Tense cannot change the characteristic nature of wind. Wind is always wind . In the very same manner if it is said ‘the Father will send (Holy Ghost) ...’ what wrong is there if it is attributed to the person of Holy Ghost himself? Why should it be regarded as other person? Thus it may logically be posed. To this objection we humbly present our argument as follows : Had the information been complete within itself, without an additional information provided therein, the objection as raised may sustain. But we have an additional information about him saying as - ‘another comforter’ which dampens the objection. ‘Another Holy Ghost’ is as meaningless as ‘another wind’

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 228

The example of wind as made mention in the objection is pertinent for the argument. Just as the wind, the Holy Ghost of our argument is also ever existent, the point of which is essentially be known and remembered. So, it is as meaningless to say ‘another Holy Ghost’ as is to say ‘another wind’. Can anybody say ‘another wind’ if he refers any event in which the role of wind is repeatedly described? For example 1. The wind came. 2. again the wind came. 3. second time the wind came 4. another time the wind came (in this ‘another’ is qualifying time but not ‘the wind’). Just as we cannot say ‘another wind’ so also we cannot say ‘another comforter’ in the sense of Holy Ghost - as the Holy Ghost is the epithet of the Archangel Gabriel - the only one person. But as prophets are different persons of different nations and times, we can admittedly say ‘another comforter’ in the sense of a prophet - to mean as ‘another prophet’. Now let us know the role of a prophet and the Holy Ghost, taking the biblical record rather than in our own words. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets...

-Zachariah 7:12

This passage explains that God sent his law and the words through His Spirit (Holy Ghost) to the prophets who in turn conveyed to the people. This discloses that the Holy Ghost descends on the selected prophets of the respective times in different nations and communities. Thus it can be concluded that ‘another comforter... which is the Holy Ghost’ means not the ‘another Holy Ghost’ but ‘another prophet’ on whom the Holy Ghost descends with law and message.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 229

THE LAST PROPHET MOHAMMAD ... he shall teach you all things... -John 14:26

As he (Mohammad) is the last prophet, Jesus prophesied saying “he shall teach you all things.” We have a reference relating to this point in an another prophecySeventy weeks1 are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconcilition for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

-Daniel 9:24

This prophecy is identical in every respect to that of the prophecy by Jesus which is under discussion. In the above prophecy we have metaphoric information about the time of the advent and of the mission of that prophet (to anoint the most Holy) has been provided. II. He shall teach you all things means - there remains no teaching, no message nor anything to prophecy. Thus he is the last prophet. After him no prophet ever comes. This is what the above prophecy explains in nutshell saying as “... to seal up the vision and prophecy...” Here it may be questioned that why there was only one prophet to come after Jesus and why not many? It may be noted that the promised comforter (prophet) was followed by the word another (i.e) another comforter, which literally signifies for one person only. If we regard more than one, the prophecy of Jesus becomes void. There cannot be more prophets than only one the point of which has been declared in Qur’an as follows :

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 230

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and seal of the prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

-Qur’an 33:40

Jesus said ‘my real teachings would vanish away’ III. ...and he shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. -John 14:26 This part of the prophecy is an eye opener to the christianity. Whatsoever I have said unto you, he shall bring to your remembrance : This speaks in clear terms that Jesus to have prophesied saying that all his teachings would be supplanted and vanish away by giving predominant place for fallacy of doctrines contrary to his real teachings. Thus the wrong doctrines and false faith would prevail. But when the comforter would appear, he would remind his (Jesus’) real teachings and disapprove all such dogmas which go against to his teachings. Thus it is said of him - ... whatsoever I have said unto you, he shall bring to your remembrance.

Now let us recall that what were his real teachings, and how they were vanished away giving rise of wrong doctrines and false faith which are now predominant and that how were the real teachings once again brought into remembrance of the community by the comforter as prophesied by Jesus. We know that the prohet Jesus was sent to the community known as Israelites as a reformer. Reformations never agree with the prevalent wrong dogmas. They regarded him as a man, not of God as his teachings and reformations were not in conciliation with their traditional practices. So they wanted to get rid of him by any means. But they could not. And hence they betrayed him and handed over to the governor with false allegations against him as an antinational who was provoking people to revolt against the king Caesar. Thus they got the sentence of death punishment decreed against him, by crucifixion. He was put on cross. All people

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 231

thought him to be dead, on seeing him in coma. Hence he was removed from the cross and was put in a very spacious cave (grave) where he was resuscitated. After his recovery from wounds, he appeared to his disciples on 5 or 6 occasions only, that too in disguise. As many days as he stayed in that place, he remained in disguise of one form or the other for fear of further attack by the enemy. This is the story of cross in nutshell which we have discussed in detail in our other books - 1. Is Atonement Necessary for salvation? and 2. Isaiah 53. This mystery of cross however became a source of boastful saying for Jews declaring as “we did kill Messiah the messenger of God ...” and the later christians (not the immediate disciples and followers) began to profess and propagate with pleasant contentment that the blood of Jesus (his supposed death on cross) was a means for their salvation. This point we have discussed in detail in our book ‘The Profile of Paul’.

HAD HE REALLY BEEN SENT FOR SACRIFICE It was neither his wilful sacrifice for the redemption of mankind nor was it God ordained, but a calamitous event took place as a result of cunning devices of Jews plotted against him. Though Jesus did not say any thing about it, we find here and there some scattered glimpses relating to the cross, which seem to be later additions which might have been incorporated to justify their invented dogma of sacrifice of Jesus on cross the point of which can be established when compared with the attitude of Jesus when he was about to be betrayed for crucifixion. He tried his best of all means to save himself from crucifixion Was he really sent into the world to give his life in sacrifice as a ransom? Had he really been appointed for that purpose only, could ever he had tried to escape from death on cross? Let us have

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 232

a glance over his attitude in this regard. a. He prepared his disciples to be alert on guard and if necessary to attack the enemy with swords ... and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -Luke 22:36

b. He disgiused so as not to be betrayed i. And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, whomsoever I shall kiss that same is he [Jesus], take him and lead him away safely. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master: and kissed him. And they laid their hands on him, and took him. Mark 14:43-46 ii. But Jesus said unto him Judas betrayest thou the son of man [Jesus] with a kiss? -Luka 22:48 The above two quotations give a clear picture of Jesusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; disguise. The betrayer was no other than one of his followers. He gave them (the enemy) the sign that whomsoever he kissed the same was Jesus ... (and) Jesus in his helpless protesting voice enquires Judas - â&#x20AC;&#x153; betrayest thou the son of man with a kiss?â&#x20AC;? The kiss in pretence of tribute, played a role of device in disclosing the identity of Jesus who was in disguise. This is a sure testimony which shows that Jesus disguised himself so as not to be betrayed of the enemy. c. He prayed that God might save him from the anticipated death -

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 233

Then saith he unto them My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed saying - my Father, if it be possible, let this cup1 pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

-Matthew 26:38-39

d. He tried to runway along with his disciples Rise up - let us go: lo he that betrayeth me is at hand. -Mark 14:42

e. Even after he was betrayed, he tried to be released from the hands of enemy by expressing his wish ... nor let me go.

-Luke 22:68

f. Just before going into coma, he exhibited his despair saying as And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with loud voice saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?

-Matthew 27:46

This can be taken as an irrefutable testimony which shows the unwillingness of Jesus to be crucified. It is an axiomatic memoir which explains that the punishment given to Jesus on cross for the false accusations made against him, was neither the God ordained sacrifice for the remission of sins of many as is being supposed, nor the wilful sacrifice offered by Jesus to redeem the sins of mankind.

COMFORTER BRINGS INTO REMEMBRANCE OF WHAT REALLY HAD HAPPENED Jews wanted to kill him by any possible means and at last they succeeded in putting him on cross - and deluded that they killed him. But christians regard the blood of Jesus which was

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 234

shed on cross as a ransom for their sins. The above event of Jesus’ having been put on cross became a source of rejoicement for the former ones who thought that they killed Jesus who was destroying their religion, while the latter ones thought that it was God ordained sacrifice for the remission of sins of mankind and hence he (Jesus) had wilfully sacrificed his life on cross. Thus these two houses of Israel have been astrayed and forgot the real purpose for which Jesus had been sent; and this is one of the points that comforter has brought into the remembrance of these people, which reads as follows: And their1 saying ‘we did kill the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew2 him not nor crucified3 him but he was made to appear to them like (one crucified)4 and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this (conjecture) into a certainty.

-Qur’an 4:157

on the contrary; Allah lifted upto Himself 5. And Allah is mighty wise.

-Qur’an 4:158

And there is none among the people of the book, but will believe in it before his death, and on the day of Resurrection he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.

-Qur’an 4:159

Some translated this verse as quoted above; while some others to mean as ... And there is none among the people of the book, but will believe in him before his death; and on the day of Resurrection he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.

Please note in the above passage 4:157-159 the event happened to Jesus is described: he was not killed, nor crucified, but he

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 235

appeared like one crucified... all these clauses speak only the event happened to Jesus; but not focussing on the person of Jesus. So it is better translated to mean... “There is none among the people of the book but will believe in it (the event as described) before his death...” than to mean ... “ but will believe in him (Jesus) before his death (the person of book). The question is not whether they believe in the event or in his person but whether “all people of book” believe as stated in Qur’an. As a matter of fact if all believe there would have been no place for further clause “...and on the day of Resurrection he (Jesus) shall be witness against them.” Therefore the last clause discloses that the people of the book will not believe as described focussing on the event that how he was saved by, saying - “ on the contrary Allah lifted up to Himself...” meaning he was not killed nor crucified... which rules out the notion of the church that Jesus was crucified for the remission of the sins of mankind. The following verse of Qur’an And there is none amog the people of the book , but will believe in it before his death 1.. is only an ironical use just as the following biblical verses...

-Qur’an 4:159

1. For it is written, As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God. -Romans 14:11 2. I have sworn by myself, the word gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. ` - Isaiah 45:23

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 236

Jesus exhorted to observe the law - comforter brings thispoint into the remembrance of church 2. As regards to law, the christianity speculates it as a curse, thinking that no man can be justified by law but by faith in Jesus. They believe that Jesus has redeemed them from the curse of law. Surprisingly enough one cannot find anywhere in the teachings of Jesus saying that he had redeemed them from the curse of law2 but on the other hand he stressed the importance of following of the law3 which we have discussed in detail in our previous pages. This point has been brought into remembrance by the comforter, as to have been said by Jesus in his own words which has been incorporated in Qur’an which reads as follows: And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely the Torah, and to allow you some of that which was forbidden to you; and I come to you with a sign from your Lord: So obey me and worship Allah. -Qur’an 3:50

Here one may raise objection by saying that Jesus had said “ That not one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law4...” If this be the case how the comforter says in Qur’an that Jesus to have said that he had allowed some of that which was forbidden to them? Jesus was sent to the community known as Israelites as a reformer and prophet. They were accustomed to follow the doctrines invented by their forefathers. And the traditions of their forefathers were regarded as the law and hence they made some of the lawful matters as unlawful, taking the wrong interpretation of the law and moulding them according to their invented traditions.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 237

Thus we read --a. ... For the pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders ... Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, for laying aside the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditiion. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother and whoso curseth father or mother let him die the death: But ye say, if a man shall say, to his father or mother, It is corban, that is to say a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me: he shall be free. -Mark 7:1-13 b. As regards to the observance of the sanctity of the Sabbath, Jews misconceived that it is unlawful to do even good (social service) on the day of Sabbath. And they asked him, saying, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they may accuse him. And he said unto them, what man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days ...

-Matthew 12:9-

The above two passages show that the Israelites were inclined towards their traditions, treating them to be divine law and thus made some lawful matters as unlawful. But Jesus as a prophet and reformer tried to reform them by giving the correct interpretation of the law. This is what is meant by Qur’anic saying - “ to allow you some of that which was forbidden you”. One should not mistake that Jesus made lawful that which were forbidden by God, but he did allow some of that which were forbidden by their fore-

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 238

fathers. Thus the objection is ruled out. Thus the comforter (Mohammad) brought into the remembrance of the community that how Jesus exhorted them to follow the correct law and at the same time how he reformed the traditions of their forefathers can also be made known. Jesus exhorted people to worship God and obey him (Jesus). This is an eye opener to church which regards him as incarnation of God. This has been reminded by comforter 3. And the comforter (Prophet Mohammad) brought into remembrance of the situation which they had been involved in at the time when Jesus appeared among them saying in the following words: And when Jesus came with clear proofs he said, “ Truly I am come to you with wisdom, and to make clear to you some of that about which you differ. So fear Allah and obey me. Verily Allah He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. This is the right path. -Qur’an 43:63-64

This is a similar verse as to one that has been discussed above. This deals with the difference of opinion on the law and that how Jesus had provided them the correct annotation of it which points have been discussed. This is what is meant by the Qur’anic verse ... (Jesus said) “Truly I am come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that about which you differ.” And it is also reminded them that how Jesus had clearly exhorted them to worship God Almighty and to obey him (Jesus). So fear Allah and obey me Verily Allah - He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. This is the right path.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 239

This is the last verse of the above passage. It is a reminder to the christianity, explaining that Jesus to have said as above. Now let us see whether Jesus exhorted his people to fear God and obey him (Jesus). a. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. -Matthew 10:28 Thus he evoked the fear of God. b.Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death unto life. -John 5:24 In the above verse we find Jesus to have exhorted people to obey him and to believe on God. And again: Verily Allah - He is my Lord and your Lord... Jesus clearly explained to his people that God Almighty was his Father and the Father of the people as well, and also was God to himself as well as of people.

Thus we read from the following passages of gospel. ... and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God... -John 20:17 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani? that is to say my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

-Matthew 27:46

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 240

And Jesus answered him, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength... -Mark 12:29-30

These are a few real teachings of Jesus about God and about himself. But the present christianity regardless of his teachings began to worship him alone as God. So in Qur’anic verses (43:6364) his real teachings have been reminded by the comforter Mohammad. Jesus not son of God in literal sense - but all are sons of God in figurative sense - scriptures and Jesus agree: reminded by comforter 4. It does not befit (the Majesty of) Allah to take unto Himself a son. Holy is He. When He decrees a thing. He says to it, ‘Be’ and it is. -Qur’an 19:35 In this verse of Qur’an it is said that the (Majesty of) God Almighty surpasses the weakness nature to have a son for Himself. The church awarded Jesus the sonship of God. It recognises him as one begotten of God merely because he was conceived of a virgin Mary. Just to rule out this notion it is further said that if God wants to bring out any thing He simply orders it and instantly the thing comes into being. Thus this goes to imply that it is not a hard thing to bring out a son through virgin. Nothing is impossible with God. He created Adam, the first man out of dustSurely the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam. He created him out of dust, then He said to him ‘Be’ and he was. Qur’an 3:59

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 241

... for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

-Matthew 3:9

Israelites used to call God as Father. And in their scriptures also we can find God addressing his people as sons and daughters. 1. “Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?” (4) “... and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father ...” (19) - J e r m i a h 3:4,19 2. I will be his [Solomon] father and he shall be my son... - I Chronicles 17:12-13 God calls Ephraim as His first born. 1.“... for I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my first born” (9) “ Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spoke against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.” (20) - Jermiah 31:9, 20 God says - “Solmon shall be my son and I will be his Father”. I Chronicles 17:13 “He [Solomon] shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son and I will be his father ... I Chronicles 22:10 ... For I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. -I Chronicles 28:6 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind... -I Chronicles 28:9 Israel (as Israelites) is son of God. 1. And thou shalt say unto pharoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn. -Exodus 4:22

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 242

Sons of God - for angels. 1. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them. -Job 1:6 & 2:1 2. I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. -Psalms 82:6 3. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the son of God. (son of God means angel of God. refer verse 28) -Daniel 3:25 My son in the sense of My people. 1. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, let my son go that he may serve me:... Exodus 4:22-23 + Exodus 5:1-2 + 6:6-7 Despite these clear points which prove that in those days it had been the custom of people to call God as Father which is a common practice of many people of these times also, Church attributes biological sonship to Jesus, only on the plea that he called God as Father. This is only a metaphoric use as shown in the above quotations, but can not be taken in literal sense. But the church awarded Jesus the sonship of God in literal sense regarding him as a really begotten son of God. As relating to this let us recall to our minds that Jews had suspected Jesus on mere speculation to have claimed that he was the son of God. And they enquired whether it was true. But Jesus denied.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 243

Thus we read : Then said they all, Art thou then the son of God? And he said unto them, ye say that I am.

-Luke 22:70

Apart from this he proclaimed saying as My Father and your Father, my God and your God. -John 20:17

If this be the fact, are not all men sons of God just as Jesus had been? and is not God Almighty the God of Jesus too as He is to us all? Reminder of comforter (Bringing into remembrance is - a reminder) V. Indeed they are disbelievers who say, surely Allah is none but the Messiah, son of Mary, whereas the Messiah (himself) said, ‘O children of Israel worship Allah who is my Lord and your Lord.’ Surely whoso associates parteners with Allah, him has Allah forbidden Heaven and the Fire will be his resort. And the wrong doers shall have no helpers. -Qur’an 5:72 O people of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary was only a Messenger of Allah and a (fulfilment) of His word which he sent down to Mary and a mercy from him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not “They (are) three.” Desist (it will be) better for you. Verily, Allah is the only one God. Far is it from His Holiness that he should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a guardian.

-Qur’an 4:171

The Messiah, son of Mary was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers (like unto him) had indeed passed away before him.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 244

And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how we explain the signs for their good and see how they are turned away.

-Qur’an 5:75

Say will you worship beside Allah that which has no power to do you harm or good? And it is Allah who is All Hearing,All Knowing. -Qur’an 5:76 “ Say ‘O people of the Book! exceed not the limits in the matter of your religion unjustly, nor follow the evil inclination of a people who went astray before and cause many to go astray, and who have strayed away from the right path.’ ”

-Qur’an 5:77

COMFORTER MOHAMMAD REMINDED-ALL RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OF ALL PROPHETS WERE/ARE ONE AND THE SAME C. Peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you... -John 14:27 The meaning of the word peace (noun) is calmness, quietness, tranquility and serenity. In Arabic it is called salaam. The word ISLAM as proper noun for religion derived from the word SALAAM (PEACE). Surely the religion with God is the Islaam.

-Qur’an 3:19

Islam has another meaning also, denoting for complete submission to the will of God. Peace can be attained only by means of complete submission to the will of God. Hence Islam is submission and peace. In this way these two meanings aptly applicable to every religion of God (teachings of all prophets that appeared in succession from time to time one after another). This was why Jesus said “peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you...” In

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 245

this way the peace (Islam) is used as proper noun denoting for the religion which was to be given by prophet Mohammad (comforter) and at the same time the people might accept him and his teachings as had been prophesied by the earlier prophets too which we quote below a few of them : He has prescribed for you the religion which He enjoined on Noah and which we have revealed to thee, and which we enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus saying ‘Remain steadfast in obedience and be not divided therein. Hard upon the polythiests is that to which thou callest them. Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases and guides to Himself him who turns to Him. Qur’an 42:13

I leave peace with you: he publisheth the same peace thus he reminds you I. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth PEACE that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto zion thy God reigneth. -Isaiah 52:7 In this prophecy the prophet who was to preach Islam (peace) was regarded with high reputation describing ‘how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that publisheth PEACE...’ church attributes this prophecy also to Jesus. But the last clause of the prophecy “ that saith unto zion thy God reigneth,” which applies to the theocracy established by prophet Mohammad, and zion -is a place metaphorically used for the area covered by theocracy established by prophet (Mohammad) dampens the church as Jesus had been praying for theocracy to come1. This proves that theocracy was not established by Jesus while the comfoter had estableshed

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 246

it. II. Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings that publisheth PEACE... Nahum 1:15 Prophet Nahum also speaks high of that prophet declaring, “ Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that publisheth peace.” III. The mountains shall bring PEACE to the people and the little hills by righteouness. -Psalms 72:3 It is a similar prophecy as above. We can find in this passage also ascribing privilege to the mountains through which peace(Islam) was to be preached. IV. The Lord will give strength unto his people, the Lord will bless his people with PEACE. -Psalms 29:11 This is to mean as saying that God would confer his favour of Islam (peace) on his people. V. O Lord, thou wilt ordain PEACE for us : for thou also hast wrought all our works in us. -Isaiah 26:12 In this passage we find Isaiah saying that God would ordain to accept peace (Islam). This is what has been said by Jesus - “ let not your heart be troubled neither let it be afraid (John 14:27)”; “now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe(John 14:29).” “These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be affended (John 16:1).” VI. The way of PEACE they know not, and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths : whosoever goeth therein shall not know PEACE. -Isaiah 59:8 In this passage the prophet Isaiah grieves about the people who would make crooked the paths - so as the people would not

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 247

enter into PEACE (Islam). In the above six prophecies it is foretold that there was a person through whom the reformed religion under the title of PEACE to mean Islam (as proper noun) in Arabic term, would be given. But the church attributes all thses prophecies to the person of Jesus. But what dampens to their notion is Jesus himself too had prophesied emphasising on the point to recieve that PEACE under John 14:27. Let us once again remember PEACE I leave with you: my PEACE I give unto you... -John 14:27

This part of the prophecy says that what you have with you as a religion, is the same as that what you will receive from the comforter. This means that what Jesus and former prophets taught was the one and the same religion which would be revived and be presented once again finally. Therefore “ Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid1” To mean as saying “receive him without any hesitation, and let there be no doubt about him2. We have already said that the wrong doctrines would prevail in place of real teachings of Jesus. (He shall bring to your remembrance)3 what all he would teach naturally go against to their notions and hence “ Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid4. And this point is further supported by another verse - “ And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe5. What these two pasages under references John 16:13 and John 14:29 respectively imply to mean is - that the religion of God taught by all prophets of all nations was left to the freewill and freedom of choice. People were set at liberty either to accept the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 248

teachings of the prophets of their times or reject. Man has been sent into this world to see whether he accepts the truth or run after falsehood. Thus he is under the trial of God1. He has set before man two paths - one good which leads to paradise and the other evil which takes to perdition2. Faculty of discretion has been awarded to man. In view of all these facts it does not befit the justice of God for forcible application of the religion on any person. What we mean to say in clear terms is that Jesus had prophesied about a prophet after him whom they (People) should have to believe. But the church has closed all the doors to reach to that PEACE by showing the accomplishment of this prophecy in the person of Holy Ghost as recorded under reference Acts 2:1-4 which we have discussed in our previous pages. The discerning readers can well judge how irrelevant is the accomplishment as shown in Acts 2:1-4 to the teachings of Jesus while prophesying about the comforter. There were a number of prophecies about the advent of Jesus in their scriptures. But the Jews twisted them in such a way as it became too hard for the community to recognise Jesus as the same one about whom their scriptures prophesied. Was it a loss to Jesus? No. But it were they, who crooked the paths so as the people could not enter in to right path, that had sustained a great loss. So also the case with church who has twisted the prophecy in the forcible accomplishment as recorded under ref. Acts 2:1-4

COMFORTER MEANS PROPHET ON WHOM DESCENDS HOLY SPIRIT D. but when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. John 15:26

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 249

a. But when the comforter is come This speaks that the comforter was not present, but was to come after Jesus . Hence the word comforter cannot be exclusively ascribed to the person of Holy Ghost who has ever been present. Hence comforter means a prophet on whom the descent of Holy Ghost is understood, because whithout his guidance no prophet can act. The duty of Holy Ghost is that he should proceed from God with message to prophet. b. whom I will send unto you from the Father In this clause it is said that Jesus would send him (comforter); but according to the verse (John 14:16) that Jesus would pray (for comforter) and that God would send him. Which of the two statements is correct, cannot be decisively said. But one thing is certain that is, that the comforter would come from God as these two verses agree in this connection. And when once it is agreed that he would come after Jesus, it is meaningless to attribute to the person of Holy Spirit who was already present. c. He shall testify of me

BIRTH OF JESUS-TWISTED TO MEAN AS INCARNATION OF GOD BUT REALITY DISCLOSED BY COMFORTER, MOHAMMAD When the angels said, O Mary, Allah gives thee glad tidings of a word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God.

-Qur’an 3:45

She said - “ My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said “ such is (the way of) Allah. He creates

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 250

what he pleases. When He decrees a thing, He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.

-Qur’an 3:47

And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel.

-Qur’an 3:48

And He will make him a Messenger to the children of Israel. -Qr’an 3:49

This is the brief account of the birth of Jesus that was born to a virgin. This has been preserved by the church in the gospels. Then it may be asked why has it been once again reminded by the comforter when there is no difference of opinion in the church in this regard? For this we submit our humble reply as follows. No doubt, so many facts have been preserved in the gospels, but the subsequent additions transformed them to be ambiguous. If anybody tries to know the correct meaning of the real teachings of Jesus, the church diverts him to the passages relating to the doctrines that became predominant as a result of the subsequent innovations. Thus the meaning of the real statements of Jesus is shrowded in the ambiguity, simply making the seeker (a cursory reader) to follow blindly the finger signs of the church. For instance let us take the birth of Jesus - how it has been twisted to attribute divinity to the person of Jesus merely because he was conceived by a virgin. St. John begins his Gospel In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

-John 1:1-3

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 251

And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

-John 1:14

In Qur’an (3:45) we have an epithet ‘ a word’ for Jesus, according to Qur’anic terminology kalima, corresponding to the promise of God,1 the fulfilment of which took place through the virgin Mary’s womb. Kalima of Arabic terminology may be taken to mean as- a word in the sense of ‘a promise’ or an order’. A promise may be taken as fulfilment of the promise as made in Isaiah 7:14 (...a virgin shall conceive and bear a son...). And ‘a word’ can be taken to mean as ‘an order’ in the sense as the fulfilment of the order as made through the angel which was submissively accepted by Mary saying as- ‘...be it unto me according to thy word...’ (Luke 1:38) and according to Qur’an ‘when He decrees a thing He says to it ‘Be’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:48) But we see the same word as “the word” in gospel John, corresdponding to the manifestation of Jesus as incarnation and son of God2. Let us examine the verses as quoted above. The first verse reads as In the beginning was the word . (it speaks of some individual person - the word) and the word was with God-- (so, that person, “ the word” was with God. Thus God provided a place to ‘the word’ to be with Him. However this makes clear that ‘God’ and ‘the word’ as two distinct persons, were in the beginning. and the word was God --- In this part of the verse, the mystery of ‘the word’ is disclosed by saying ‘the word’ was God. Thus the two gods were in the beginning side by side or one with the other.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 252

In the second verse we read as The same was in the beginning with God

-John 1:2

This makes clear that God who was known as ‘the word’ was with God. Thus the existence of two gods was distinctly pointed out. It is same in the meaning as that of the first verse. In the third verse we read as All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made.

-John 1:3

The first clause says that he made all things (all things were made by him) - thus it became evident that he was the creator of all things. But the consecutive clause says that every thing was made only while he was present (in his presence) (without him was not any thing was made). Further this makes clear that the ‘the word’ God, was not creator but every thing was created in his presence. Without his presence nothing was brought into existence. In this way, ‘the word’ was excluded from every thing that was created by God. Thus it is established that ‘the word’ -(God) is self- subsistent. Thus three features of ‘the word’ are given, those are (1) God. (2) self - subsistent, (3) Not creator. Now examine the verse as quoted in John 1:14 And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

-John 1:14

1. ‘The word’ was made flesh. 2. (He was) the only begotten of Father(God). While he was ‘the word’ he was independant and self subsistent, but when he came in the incarnation of man, in the process of transformation of ‘the word’ into flesh, it appears, the help of God became inevitable (‘the word’ was made flesh and sent as the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 253

only begotten of the Father. Thus his liberty and capability is diminished). In the beginning there was “the word” which was God by himself; and he was with God. Thus the existence of two Gods is made known (John 1:1-2) According to church there is one more God - thus the trinity is formed. Let us for a while ignore him, as the issue at hand is only relating to the two Gods. So let us name them as 1st God and 2nd God respectively for easier understanding. Now the question is Whether the 2nd God (the word) was transformed as flesh (Jesus) or the 1st God (Father) begot his son (2nd God). In an another way Was Jesus the incarnation of 2nd God or the only begotten son of 1st God? The promise as made in Isaiah 7:14 says that God himself shall give them a sign- “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son ...” what does this sign represent to? whatever be the answer for this, it is admitted that he was a sign and was sent by God. This discloses that he was not God who manifested as man nor son of God but a sign sent by God. Thus the two main points of the verse (John 1:14) Viz. (1) the word was made flesh (2) The only begotten of Father have been ruled out and made clear that Jesus was only a sign. According to prophecy in Isaiah 42:1 it is said of Jesus as a servant of God and the prophecy is described to have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus under reference Matthew 12:18 (Behold my servant whom I have chosen). Was Jesus a servant of 1st God or of 2nd God? Cannot be of 2nd because, it is he who has been transformed as Jesus. If Jesus were 2nd God by himself what right the 1st God had to call the 2nd God who was his co - equal, as a servant?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 254

Now we would like to know (whether) 1. Was Jesus son of 1st God ? (John 1:14) or 2. Was he the incarnation of 2nd God, ‘the word’ who manifested himself as the son of 1st God? (John 1:14) or 3. Was he a sign ? (Isaiah 7:14) or 4. Was he a chosen servant of 1st God ? (Isaiah 42:1 and Matthew 12:18) Note :- Incarnate flesh cannot be a begotten son nor the begotten son can be an incarnate body. This is because the descent or embodiment of God in human body is known as incarnation according to religious terminology. Thus it is made clear in Qur’an that ‘the word’ of gospel is not the epithet of God but ‘a word’ in the sense of a promise made. Jesus was not accursed as church makes him to be comforter disclosed that he is honoured in this world and in the next ... Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next and of those who are granted nearness to God.

-Qur’an 3:45

While giving glad tidings of a son to Mary, two more informations have been provided. 1. Honoured in this world and in the next: 2. And (will be) of those who are granted nearnesss to God: 1. Honoured in this world and in the next : Just to evade from the following of the law, the church (Paul) worte a very long letter to Galatians wherein Jesus Christ has been described as one that became accursed for them - we read as follows -

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 255

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree1.

-Galatians 3:13

But the comforter has testified about him as honoured one both in this world and in the next, but not accursed as church makes him out to be. 2. And (will be) of those who are granted nearness to God: Thus it is made clear by the comforter that Jesus alone is not the person who will acquire the nearness of God, but he shall be one among those that will acquire the nearness of God. His mission-purpose of advent-brought into remembrance of the church by comforter A. He said, Iam a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. -Qur’an 19:30 B. And when Jesus perceived their disbelief, he said, ‘who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?’ The disciples answered. ‘ We are the helpers of Allah. We have believed in Allah. And bear thou witness that we are obedient.’ Our Lord we believe in that which thou hast sent down and follow this Messenger. So write us down among those who bear witness.-Qur’an 3:52-53 Now let us discuss the first point under - A It is recorded in Qur’an that Jesus to have said that he was a servant of God. This statement of comforter (Mohammad) rather teases the church, who exalted the person of Jesus to Godhead and worships him. To erase this false notion it is reminded here that he was only a prophet and servant of God.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 256

We find in gospel John that Jesus to have admitted this point Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. -John 13:16 ... For my Father is greater than I. -John 14:28

Jesus was servant of God Moses was servant of God All prophets were servants of God -

(Isaiah 42:1) (Matthew 12:18) (Nehmiah 1:7) (Zachariah 1:6) (Amos 3:7) (Damiel 9:6) (Jermiah

7:25 & 25:4) Now let us examine the verse of Qur’a as quoted above in our point - B Some pastors in several occasions argued with me showing the above verse - saying that Jesus asked that who would be his helpers- and in reply the disciples said that they were the helpers of Allah ... and interrogatively posed and said - ‘Did not the disciples accept Jesus as God Himself even according to Qur’an?’ And they also quoted from gospel Luke under reference 24:51-52, in support of above Qur’anic verse. (When he was being carried up into heaven) And they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

-Luke 24:52

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 257

In all such contentions, I explained them in the following manner. Jesus asked - “Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah?” Disciples said - “ We are the helpers of Allah.” Had the verse been complete within itself, saying as - “ Who are my helpers?” The answer given by them - “ We are the helpers of Allah” would certainly have been to mean that disciples had accepted Jesus as Allah. But here the case is not such as this but Jesus asked ... ‘who are my helpers in the cause of Allah?’ This is to mean as saying ‘I am striving in the cause of Allah and who shall be my helpers in the cause of Allah? Then the answer given by the disciples - ‘we are the helpers of Allah’, imply to mean “We are the helpers of Allah in His cause.” This is the correct interpretation of the verse which is supported by some other clauses of the same verse such as- 1. We (disciples) have believed in Allah. 2. And bear thou (Jesus) witness that we are obedient. 3. Our Lord we believe in that which Thou hast sent down and follow this messenger (Jesus). 4. So write us down among those who bear witness. Thus the wrong interpretation of the pastors on the Qur’anic verse 3:52-53 has been ruled out. Now examine a passage from gospel of Matthew under reference 9:36-38 which is similar in every respect with that of the above Qur’anic verse. But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted and were scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers in to his harvest.

-Matthew 9:36-38

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 258

But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them - why? (the reason is given as) “because they fainted”. The reason as explained here does not seem to be apt when examined in the context - “and were scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd.” Jesus was shepherd1. The multitudes rejected Jesus and hence became like sheep without shepherd. So the reason for Jesus’ compassion over them was “ they rejected him to accept as a prophet.” Now this goes with conformity with the Qur’anic verse saying as - “And when Jesus perceived their disbelief” -- asked Jesus - “Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?” can be equated with, on seeing the multitudes rejecting him, “he was moved with compassion and saith unto his disciples, the harvest truly is plenteous but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he will send forth labourers into his harvest”.

THE COMFORTER, THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD TESTIFIED THE MIRACLES WORKED BY JESUS AS DIVINELY GIFTED-BUT NOT DEVILISH And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Torah and the gospel, and (send him as a) Messenger to the children of Israel (who will say) “ I come to you with a sign from your Lord, (which is) that I will fashion out for you (a creation) out of clay after the manner of a bird, then I will breathe into it (spirit) and it will become a soaring being by the command of Allah : and I will heal the born blind and the leprous and I will quicken the dead by command of Allah; and I will announce to you what you

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 259

will eat and what you will store up in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you be believers.”

-Qur’an 3:48-49

In the above Qur’anic verses we find Jesus to have said that he worked all miracles only by the command of Allah. This is not palatable to the christian mind because they think of him as one capable of doing every thing by himself. So let us take into consideration what Jesus had said in this regard. In the gospel of John we find Jesus as saying Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

-John 17:7

Thus Jesus admitted that what all miracles he did were done by the favour of God conferred upon him. Contrary to this, the present churh defines that what all miracles he worked were done of his own will and capability while the Jews thought that he was working those miracles by the power of Satan. In defiance of these two false notions the comforter(Mohammad) testified that the miracles what Jesus did were not done by the help of Satan, as accused by Jews and at the same time he brought in to the remembrance of the church that they were not performed by his own ability but by the help and command of God which point affirmed by Jesus too under reference John 17:7 (Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee).

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 260

HOLY GHOST IS NOT COMFORTER BY HIMSELF-BUT ACTS AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND COMFORTER E. If ye love me keep my commandments. -John 14:15 The above exhortation of Jesus , stresses more on the commandment which he gave to his disciples to accept the comforter who was about to come after him, rather than on his earlier commandments. It does not mean that they should neglect all his earlier teachings in preference to this commandment, but it means that they should accept that prophet when he appeared. Thus a stress has been given showing the importance in believing on the comforter. This point is further supported by the following verses such as 1. let not your heart be troubled neither let it be afraid . -John 14:27 2. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe -John 14:29. 3. These things have I spoken unto you that ye should not be affended . -John 16:1 4. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the comforter will not come unto you but if I depart I will send him unto you . -John 16:7 All above points irrefutably establish the fact that there was to come a comforter after Jesus. This speaks clearly that the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;comforterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cannot be attributed to the person of Holy Ghost who had already been present on every prophet of God who preceded

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 261

Jesus. This cannot be said of Jesus also, as Jesus himself was possessed of Holy Ghost and prophesying of the comforter. Therefore the comforter is not the Holy Ghost himself, but a prophet on whom descends the Holy Ghost with a message from God Almightyt1. The following passage which is the part of the prophecy reveals this fact. What he hears - that he speaks I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself : but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

-John 16:12-13

Let us remember once again that how do prophets prophesy (convey the message of God): God choses a prophet from among the mankind and sends His message through the Holy Spirit. He descends on the prophet and some times he manifests in the human form and reveals to the prophet the message what he hears from God (thus it is) ... for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. Thus Holy Spirit acts as a mediator between God and prophet. And the prophet conveys the message to the people that which he hears from the Holy Spirit. (Thus it is)... for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. Thus a prophet acts as a mediator between Holy Spirit and the people. But in some exceptional cases God spoke directly with some prophets such as Abraham, Moses etc. This is how the message of God comes to the people. Thus the former one speaks only that which he hears from God : but cannot speak of himself. So also the latter one speaks only that which he hears from the Holy Spirit; but cannot speak of himself. Thus both (convey) speak whatsoever one hears but cannot speak of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own self. The following quotations speak this fact.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 262

And his father Zacharias was filled with the holy Ghost, and prophesied saying...

-Luke 1:67

Yea, they made their hearts as an adament stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets ...

-Zachariah 7:12

Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers -Acts 28:25 And Elisaheth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spokeout with a loud voice...

-Luke 1:41-42

Let us examine the above passageF. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. -John 16:12 The above is the grievance of Jesus about his mission that how it would be supplanted by wrong doctrines. He desired of explaining to his disciples that what would be the fate of his mission. But presuming that they could not bear he kept quiet by saying that he had yet many things to say unto them ... This inference we can see from an another verse which he spoke in an another occasion to Peter while entrusting him the responsibility of keeping his mission after him which reads as follows: Verily, verily I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou girdest thyself and walkdest whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

-John 21:18

This is to mean as saying in brief that Peter being the head of his mission would lead the church in accordance to the teachings of Jesus in his early period. But later on in his old age his mission

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 263

would be supplanted to the extent that it would appear almost like a new religion which would have no relevance to his original mission. Every prophet of God was - the way, the truth, and the life G. Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth. -John 16:13 This is to mean that comforter would guide them into all truth by testifying about him(Jesus) and bringing into the remembrance of his real teachings. We have discussed all these points in our previous pages. However the above part â&#x20AC;&#x153;... he will guide you into all truth.â&#x20AC;? of the verse provides a beautiful inference that every prophet of God was the way, the truth and the life through whom alone one could reach to the God. And this was the case with Jesus too (John 14:6). If it were not true, the sending of prophets into the world remains meaningless. Jesus said about the comforter (prophet) who was to come after him, that he would guide the people into all truth. The message comes from God - the procedure explained H. (for) He shall not speak of himself : but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. -John 16:13 1. On whom the Holy Ghost would descend should be only one person but not the group of disciples and others as has been recorded in the book of Acts, as it is restricted to only one person, the comforter by giving a stress on saying as another comforter (John 14:16). 2. Another comforter cannot be interpreted to mean as another Holy Ghost, but it was another prophet on whom the Holy Ghost would descend. 3. The Holy Ghost proceeds from God (John 15:26). Thus the Holy Ghost brings message from God and teaches

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 264

to the prophet and the prophet in turn speaks (conveys) to the people (for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak) (John 16:13). The procedure of revelation can be explained as below : God : Dictates the law, ordinances and guidance necessary for man to be righteous, which makes one eligible for the entry into the heaven (Paradise). Holy Ghost : God does not speak directly to the people (except in two or three exceptional cases where God had a direct talk with his prophets); but sends His message through the Holy Spirit. Thus the Holy Spirit brings whatever is dictated who in turn teaches to the prophet of the time and nation. Prophet : A chosen man from among the people of the community or nation. The Holy Spirit descends on or appears to him and teaches the message which he brings from God and exhorts the prophet to teach to the people. And accordingly the prophet announces the message thus received from the Holy Ghost before people. People : Are set at liberty either to accept the prophetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s teachings or reject. Thus the prophets receive the message from God through the Holy Ghost and the prophets in turn announce before the people. Thus the Holy Ghost is a mediator between God and the prophet. And the prophet is a mediator between Holy Spirit and people. The following two passages make this point clear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets; ... -Zachariah 7:12 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Daniel 9:10

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 265

This is how the message from God comes through the Holy Ghost and is taught to the prophet who in turn conveys the message to the people. This is the procedure of revelation which had been coming right from the beginning upto the time of prophet Mohammad the last comforter.

REDICULOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROPHECIES AS SHOWN IN ACTS 2:1-4 A number of prophecies by other prophets about the advent of prophet Mohammad have been attributed to the person of Jesus. Some prophecies made by Jesus himself have been perverted as if they have been prophesied by some other prophet (John) about Jesus. And this particular prophecy of Jesus about the advent of prophet Mohammad has been ascribed to the person of Holy Ghost. What more funny thing is that the accomplishment of the second term of the main prophecy under reference Matthew 3:11-12 â&#x20AC;&#x153;he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost ...â&#x20AC;? has been shown to have been fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 and the same is also the accomplishment of the prophecy about the comforter according to the oral explanation of the pastors. According to church the former one is the prophecy of John about Jesus while the latter is the prophecy of Jesus about the comforter. How rediculous is it to say that these two separate prophecies by two different persons about the advent of two different persons, have been fulfilled in one event and in one person if the claim of the church were to be correct ? As a matter of fact the prophecy of Matthew 3:11-12 was prophesied by Jesus about the advent of a prophet after him, which fact can be made known from our arguments made so far. So also the passages relating to the prophecy of Jesus about comforter speak of the advent of a prophet after him. Thus it is proper to show its

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 266

fulfilment only in one person the point of which we too admit. But what the fact is that its fulfilment was to take effect in the person of a prophet but not in the person of Holy Spirit. According to the procedure, Holy Ghost should bring the message from God and teach it to the prophet. But here in the accomplishment of the prophecy as shown, he fell upon all the disciples - and upon others too on other occasion (Book of the Acts). There was no question of the mediator, a prophet. Jesus says while prophesying about the advent of another comforter on whom the Holy Ghost descends, that he would reprove the world of (about) sin “ because they believe not on me -(John 16:9).” While after its accomplishment as speculated and shown in Acts 2:1-4 it is recorded to have been stated by Peter as follows: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of Holy Ghost. -Acts 2:38

How rediculously the accomplishment contradicts the prophecy can be noticed. Accomplishment says that one gets the gift of Holy Ghost if one believes in Jesus while the prophecy by Jesus says “the comforter reproves the world of (about) sin - because they believed not on Jesus (John 16:9).” This proves beyond doubt that the accomplishment of the prophecy as shown in Acts 2:1-4 has no relevance to the points as specifically mentioned by Jesus. And the speculated accomplishment was nothing but a gift showered on them that believed Jesus. And hence the accomplishment of the prophecy was yet to take place.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 267

A. Nevertheless I tell you the truth : It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart I will send him unto you -John 16:7 The above clause accumulates a very high stress on the following clauses of the verse because Jesus begins the prophecy with words such as “I tell you the truth.” B. It is expedient for you that I go away : This is to mean as saying that my going away from the world is advantageous for you. (Why should he depart?) C. for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you : This means as saying that the comforter “will come only after me”. Thus when once the comforter comes, “ my presence in the world is no longer needed. I should depart so as the comforter may come. And it is advantageous for you. But the exact period in which his advent was to take place is not mentioned. However it can be presumed that it would take place only after centuries after his departure, but not immediately as has been recorded its accomplishment as shown under reference Acts 2:1-4. This is how please examine the following Jesus had a great number of followers and disciples whom he taught so many things which were well established and practised by all of them. And they were ceaselessly conveying the same to all people. Thus a great number of people adopted those doctrines and joined the group of disciples. Even though many others did not believe, the teachings whatsoever propagated before them, remain in their knowledge which is but a natural phenomenon. Thus both the believers and nonbelievers possessed the knowledge of the true message of Jesus.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 268

Generally it so happens that attempts to introduce false doctrines may possibly be taken in hand by the false teachers in the early period of the religion which begin to take root gradually in the original religion. But its evolution to the expected level will take place in long run after passing through so many confrontations by the opposers (contradictors) who posses the knowledge of the real teachings. On one hand the real teachings, and the false teachings on the other, run in parallel, resulting in bringing the people of two different faiths under one banner of religion. Thus the religion gets polluted. Jesus had fore told of this situation giving a stern warning to be alert of the false teachers Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves ... wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

-Matthew 7:15-20

As regards to the false prophets that enter into his field, Jesus described allogarically as the ones that come in the “sheep’s clothing.” This is to mean that false teachers come in guise of real christians and from among christians themselves. That is what actually had happened in the christianity1. However under the influence of the human weakness, some followers of Jesus (might) have been succumbed to the pressure of external influence of the false teachers and began to practise treating them to be the teachings of the Holy Ghost (comforter) as has been prophesied by Jesus saying as - “ I have yet many things to say unto yo, but ye cannot bear them now” John 16:12. Taking advantage of the wrong interpretation of this verse, prevailing doctrines contrary to the real teachings of Jesus have been fradulenty penetrated into the christianity1. As long as dialectic form of preaching by both parties continues, the result as to who wins the race cannot be predicted, as the

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 269

failure or success depends on the capabilities of the preachers. However this makes one thing sure that is, the false teachings run in parallel with the real teachings. Thus the real teachings and false teachings prevail juxtapose in oral traditions till they are recorded. This is exactly what had happened with the teachings of Jesus. They were written long after the departure of Jesus, in between 70-140 AD. The Book of Acts and the epistles written by (so called) apostles, have been added in the scripture which are an additional documentation that works as commentary to justify the false teachings. This is the reason that why one can find somany contradicrtions in the Bible and Gospels, and in the latter part of the Gospels those are Acts and epistles. But some of the real teachings remained followed by the wrong interpretations. However though the real teachings are incorporated in the scriptures, many of them have been perverted to mean otherwise. Eventually the situation came to that extent that when the real teahings are shown to them they neglect them and in turn they pass their fingers on the false passages which are helpful in twisting the real teachings. In this state it can be said that they have forgotten the real teachings where necessity of bringing them into their remembrance becomes imperative. This is how generally the religion was corrupted every time and in every nation necessitating its revivalism by another prophet. For any community to arrive at to this state of religious deformity it takes some centuries. Then God appoints some other prophet who shall bring the real teachings of the former prophet to their remembrance. This was exactly the prevalent situation of the community at the time of the advent of prophet Mohammad about whom Jesus said as - â&#x20AC;&#x153;he (comforter) shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto youâ&#x20AC;? (John 14:26). Therefore the accomplishment of the prophecy as shown in

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 270

Acts 2:1-4 cannot be regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy made in connection of the comforter who should have come only after a long run after the departure of Jesus. In case of simple revivalism the gap between preceding prophet and the reforming sucessive prophet need not be of centuries but may take affect within short period. But the case under question is different. According to the prophecy of Jesus the comforter was to appear only after the complete deformity of the religion (He shell teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have say unto you -John 14:26)

MISINTERPRETATION LEADS TO ASTRAY Now examine the following two verses of the prophecy : i. I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now -John 16:12 ii. He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. -John 14:26 (These two verses have been discussed in our earlier pages) These two verses have played a crucial part in promoting the false prophets (preachers), and in preserving the wrong doctrines intact, and in keeping the following generations after them strictly adhered to their deformed religion. The first verse was useful to them in bringing out as many new doctrines as they felt necessary and the second to justify that what all new things were brought in, are not really new invention but to impress to think that they were preached by Jesus himself which were forgotten but once again reminded by the Holy Ghost (comforter). Thus the prevalence of the worng doctrines is still

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 271

continuing with unfailing belief. These are two verses of the prophecy made by Jesus just a few days before to his departure. And its fulfilment as recorded in Acts2:1-4 was the event which took place just within a few days after his departure. Thus the period between the prophecy and its supposed accomplishment as recorded, is the matter of only few days. Keeping this point in mind a perusal of the two clauses each from one versei. Ye cannot bear them now... - John 16:12 If one was not in a position to bear them (then), how it can be borne if its accomplishment is taken place within a month or two? Therefore it suggests the accomplishment only after a long period. ii. He (comforter) shall bring all things to your remembrance. -John 14:26 - discloses the fact that the prophecy was to be accomplished only after a long period but not within few days as recorded in (Acts 2:1-4). If it were taken to be a truth it looks humorous to believe that the disciples had forgotten every thing that was preached by Jesus while he was living but was recollected in his absence when brought into remembrance by the Holy Ghost just within a month or two after his departure. Now let us recollect the last order of Jesus to his desciples Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ... Matthew 28:19-20

Do the above passage not clearly say that what all Jesus had preached to his disciples was not forgotten by them but they kept everything intact in their minds?

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 272

This further goes to prove that the immediate accomplishment as shown in Acts 2:1-4 needs no necessity to bring the teachings of Jesus in the remembrance of the disciples as they had not at all forgotten them. And further the words spoken by Jesus â&#x20AC;&#x153;he (the comforter) shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto youâ&#x20AC;? speak of the event which was to take place in long run when the religion became completely polluted where the demand of revivalism by bringing of the real teachings of Jesus became inevitable by the another comforter - the prophet, Mohammad. Then does the accomplishment as shown in Acts 2:1-4 not evidently proves that it was a wanton perversion which leads to damnation rather than preventing from accepting that prophet?

JESUS WILL ACCUSE CHRISTIANS WHO DID NOT BELIEVE ON PROPHET MOHAMMAD We should know the reason why God foretells the advent of the prophets with their signs even before some centuries of their manifestation- It is just to create awareness so as the people may realize the prophets as had been prophesied and to believe them so that the people may attain the nearness of God and to be saved from entering into hell. This is the intention of God in prophesying about the advent of the prophets. Moreover every prophet also fortells as a reminder about his successor. Here a great mystery is involved. If one fails in believing the succeeding prophet as reminded by his predecessor, it is mere waste in believing him (forerunner) as oneself indirectly rejects him not believing in the successive prophet. Thus it makes no difference even if one believes or belives not on the then existing prophet. As regards to this Jesus himself furnishes his exposition as here under.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 273

How can ye believe which recieve honour one of another, and seeek not the honour that cometh form God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

-John 5:44-47

Satan is a great deceiver of man. It is his deep ambition that the mankind should be hurled into Hell. To succeed in this plan he involves people in many delusions. In this connection let us recollect how he made the Jews not to believe on Jesus. Believing on prophets is a necessary means to attain salvation as it is the decree of God. They thought that they had believed Moses and the law given by him, and it was enough for their salvation. To rebut their false hope Jesus says- ‘for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me’, which implies to mean as saying ‘As you have not believed me, you have not believed Moses also. You have not believed the writings of Moses then how can you believe me even if I demand you to believe me?’ In this way Jesus had suggested the Jews that they aught to have believed him also. And at the same time, he indirectly warned them saying as“O Jews! Do not think that I will accuse you before God on the day of judgment against your unbelief on me. But there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom you trust”. Thus in the light of the above passage Moses himself will accuse before God against the Jews saying God as“O God, I have prophesied in my scriptures about the advent of Jesus and the necessity of believing on him. Yet they rjected him and lost the salvation”.Thus Moses will accuse against Jews. In the same manner the followers of Jesus (i.e) christians must also have to believe the prophecies foretold about the advent of a prophet (That prophet), by Jesus as his forerunner.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 274

1. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. -John 16:7-9 2. And remember when Jesus son ofMary said, ‘O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmed’. And when he came to them with clear proofs they said ‘This is cler enchantment’. -Qur’an 61:6 Now the question is who it is that will accuse against christians who believed Jesus as their salvation and who think that there is no need of believing Mohammad as a prophet? It is Jesus who accuse against christians after whose rejection- no ransom can be accepted nor intercession avails. And therefore the christians have to believe that prophet Mohammad the comforter about whose advent Jesus has stressed in his prophecies apart from so many prophecies by so many other prophets1.

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 275

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 276

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 277

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 278

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 279

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 280

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 281

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 282

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 283

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 284

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 285

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 286

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 287

That Prophet------------------------------------------------------------- 288