Full text of "Kristumata Chedanam - Chattampi Swamikal - English Translation"

d fflindu Critique of Cfiudtianitu Kristumata-Chedaiiam Q^fianmukfiada^cm) KRISTUMATA CHEDANAM (Hindu Critique of Christianity) By H. H. Chattambi Swamikal (Shanmukhadasan) ff^lstiunatAt/ (sh&da/ia/rt/ &a6tetfQwfMfo Preface 4 Foreword by Chattambi Swamikal 10 PATI - PRAKARANAM 13 Purpose of Creation 14 Material Cause 22 Initial Creation 24 Evil Qualities 31 Image of God 34 Life of Christ 36 Reward & Punishment 72 Story of Holy Spirit 77 Trinity 79 PASHU PRAKARANAM 95 Creation 96 Creatures 103 PASA PRAKARANAM 116 2 Original Sin 117 GATI PRAKARANAM 120 Means to Liberation 121 Hell 127 Salvation 132 Massacres 135 KRISTUMATA SARAM 149 APPENDICES 163 Life and work of Sri Chattampi Swamikal 164 Works of Sri Chattampi Swamikal 167 Preface "Kristumata Chedanam" is an exceptional and enlightening book in the sense that, this may, perhaps, be the only book that analyses Christianity from a Hindu perspective. This is also the first critique of Christianity in Malayalam language. This book was written by Chattampi Swamikal, the spiritual luminary from Kerala, at a time when proselytization was at its peak in India, and the poor and ignorant people of India were being lured by the masquerading missionaries. It was written in an age when no Hindu dared to criticise Christianity publicly or even defend Hinduism. During the life and times of Chattampi Swamikal, a strong belief in the ideal of equality of religions (Sarva dharma Samabhava 1 as it came to be known later in India) was prevalent among Hindus. A Hindu would not even question or criticise another religion if the persons of those religions criticised and disparaged Hindu Gods and scriptures. Chattampi Swamikal was amongst the first Hindu Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava is not a mantra from the Vedas or Puranas. In fact it was a political slogan coined by Mahatma Gandhi. 4 saints to cross over this intellectual barrier and to examine critically a religion of foreign origin. He explains in this book why he attempted to criticize Christianity: "Persons belonging to every religion would hold their scriptures as God's own words. If anyone, after a critical study of scriptures of a religion, points out any flaw and declares them as false and worth rejecting, he is countered with an argument by the faithful of that religion that scriptures are God's work and are beyond the logic of souls whose knowledge is limited and that God can act as per His wish. If so, all religions have to be considered as true and equal. The Christians' claim that their religion is the only true religion does not therefore hold water". Critical examination of every religion is mandatory to understand its relative merits and demerits. He further states in his preface to the Malayalam edition: "Having seen and heard that many Christian priests and their mercenary agents are baselessly criticising our Hindu religion, Gods, great scriptures like Vedas, Smritis, etc and are printing and publishing censuring books like " Ajnana-Kutharam" (The axe to ignorance), " Trimoorti-Lakshanam " (The characteristics of Trinity), " Kuruttuvazhi" (Path of the blind), " Satgurulabham" (Gaining the true master), " Satyajnanodayam" (Arising of true knowldge), " Samayapareeksha " (The test of time), " Shastram " (T/ze science), "Pulleli kunchu". They are also enticing the people from castes like channar, pulayar, parayar, etc by luring them with caps, clothes, etc and are thus trying to convert them to Christianity and leading them to Hell. Even after witnessing and hearing many such wicked actions, it won't at all be proper if we remain silent and do not make any effort to curb these activities" . That the evangelical zeal of Christian preachers in Kerala had crossed all limits and turned, in fact, into an aggression is evident from the words of Swami Vidyananda Teertha Padar 2 : "With the advent of the British rule, the Christian missionary activities gained strength in Kerala. They were audacious enough to stop the Hindu devotees while they were proceeding to temples, ask them 'not to go to the temples to worship the Satan 3 and invite them to embrace Christianity and have faith in their (Christian's) true God\ No Hindu dared to resist or oppose such missionaries. It was in this situation that Chattampi Swamikal wrote and published the book 'Kristumata Chedanam' under the pen name - Shanmukhadasan " . In his book, "Srimat Tirthapada Paramahamsa", volume 1, chapter titled 'Efforts for conversion by Christian priests" Hindu gods were called Satan by the Christian missionaries. 6 Swami Vidyananda Teertha Padar further states that "Chattampi Swamikal trained some of his scholarly disciples to give discourses based on this book. Whenever a Christian preacher would start addressing a Hindu crowd gathered in the temple grounds, as was wont in those days, a disciple of the Swamikal would also, in the vicinity, start a discourse refuting Christianity. Later on (after 1890), two prominent disciples of Chattampi Swamikal travelled all over Kerala and spread the ideas given in 'Kristumata Chedanam' . This deterred the Christian zealots to a certain extent" . Chattampi Swamikal clearly realised that the best course to deal with the Christian evangelical aggression would be to disprove their claim that Christianity is the only true religion. In this book, Chattampi Swamikal takes up the basic tenets of Christianity one by one and tears them down with his indisputable arguments. Besides, he proves, with references drawn from their own books, that Jehovah and Jesus were not divine and that the Bible was fabricated by some wily Christians. It is evident from the concluding part of the book that he wanted Hindus also to read this book carefully and understand where Christianity stands vis-a-vis Hinduism. 7 The most important lesson one can learn from this book is that the popular saying, "all religions are equal" is a myth. It is only Hindus who subscribe to this myth of equality of religions. This idea can never be acceptable to a Jew, Christian or a Muslim. Hindus have to realise that Christianity and Islam are imperial ideologies in the garb of religion. As Swami Vivekananda, the greatest Hindu missionary of last century, pointed out, "every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more" 4 . The situation today is still as bad, if not worse. Missionaries continue to denigrate the Hindu religion without any truth or logic. If Hinduism is to survive in these turbulent times, the educated Hindus ought to work to stop conversion by creating religious awareness among the uneducated masses. The less-privileged would continue to get exploited by others as long as they remain poor and ignorant. This book would help the reader to fortify and empower himself, and also educate others, and this is the bare minimum 4 Swami Vivekananda, Complete Works volume 5, page 233, 1990 Edition, Published by Advaita Ashram, Chapter titled "ON THE BOUNDS OF HINDUISM". 8 which every one of us must do to save the Eternal Dharma and its adherents. - Translator Foreword by Chattambi Swamikal Oh! Honourable citizens, this endeavour of mine is meant to enable the common man to comprehend the principles of Christianity. Having seen and heard that many Christian priests and their mercenary agents are baselessly criticising our Hindu religion, Gods, great scriptures like Vedas, Smritis, etc and are printing and publishing censuring books like "Ajnana-Kutharam" (The axe to ignorance), "Trimoorti-Lakshanam" (The characteristics of Trinity), "Kuruttuvazhi" (Path of the blind), "Satgurulabham" (Gaining the true master), "Satyajnanodayam" (Arising of true knowldge), "Samayapareeksha" (The test of time), "Shastram" (The science), "Pulleli kunchu". They are also enticing the people from castes like channar, pulayar, parayar, etc by luring them with caps, clothes, etc and are thus trying to convert them to Christianity and leading them to Hell. Even after witnessing and hearing many such wicked actions, it won't at all be proper if we remain silent and do not make any effort to curb these activities. Due to this inaction on our part, our community has so far lost its one fifth to the Christians and further loss is imminent. Many 10 generations of ours may, due to this inaction, be deprived of prosperity in this world and the next. Needless to say, it will befit Hindu scholars, if, instead of confining to their own affairs, they come out to join hands in the highly meritorious act of educating would-be-converts. This will not only put an end to this public nuisance but also lead these people towards peace and prosperity in this world and the next. It is my firm belief that there is no action more meritorious than this. Don't you think that all the penance, charity, chanting, sacrificial rites, scriptural study, etc are mostly in self interest? Whereas if you take such efforts as above it will not only bestow glory to you and your progeny but also rescue these ignorant people from the deep pit of Christian faith. I would like to ask the Malayali 5 Hindus. Will you not incur God's ire if you look only to your interest and leave others to their fate, with least consideration for their suffering? I believe that all educated Hindus will stir themselves from their inaction and at least henceforth use, to their best capacity, their knowledge and wealth to nullify the harmful activities of the Christian missionaries. Inspired by the wise sayings "even the squirrel contributes its mite" and "Goddess of wealth (Lakshmi) blesses People who speak Malayalam, the language of Kerala 11 only those who put in a sincere effort", I have made it my mission to work for the above cause in spite of my meagre financial resources. As a first step in this direction, I am writing and publishing "Kristumata Chedanam" 6 . I dedicate this book to you, and I will feel blessed if you kindly rectify any flaws you notice in my arguments found in this book. Shanmukhadasan Chattampi Swamikal wrote this book in 1890 CE, at the age of 37. 12 ff&*ist4tm<tt€i/ (jAeda/ttun/ Parti Pati - Prakaranam The Lord 13 Purpose of Creation Shivamayam Oh! Christian preachers, Jehovah created this world comprising of sentient and insentient beings. Logic is that every effect has a cause. So, this world, being an effect, must have a cause and therefore a purpose behind it because no one will do an action without a motive. "spffaW[ft^ ^ TT^tsR STT^T - even a fool does not act without a purpose. As regards whether the motive behind the Creation is selfish or unselfish, it is beyond any doubt that this Creation is only for the benefit of Jehovah as it is said in Bible that "for I have created him for my glory" (Isaiah 43:7). Moreover, as per basic principles of Christianity there were no souls before the beginning of Creation and it cannot, therefore, be said that Creation was for the benefit of anyone else except Jehovah. The only alternative is that Jehovah created this world for His own benefit. Jehovah, in the beginning, created two humans who were ignorant and were not endowed with pure knowledge, planted in their vicinity a tree which apparently was of no use, forbade them, 14 with no justification, from eating the fruits of this tree and instead of prohibiting or destroying Satan, Jehovah let him roam freely on Earth to tempt men. Misguided by Satan, the primeval men became deluded and being tempted for pleasure they violated the divine command and thus became sinners. Thereafter, without resorting to any other means of creating souls, God allowed all souls be born as progenies of primeval men who were sinners and so all the souls became sinners. Because they were sinners, they needed to be redeemed. Since Creation gave rise to sinners, it became the indirect cause for redemption. Ways of Salvation were also revealed as a form of testing the sinners. The souls were given life on Earth, which is subject to annihilation, so as to know as pure those souls who accept the means of Salvation and have the virtue of obeying God and know the rest of the souls as impure and also about the reward and punishment they will be awarded in the next world. Creation as well as annihilation, thus, necessitates divine Grace. In order to instil fear in the pure souls in Heaven so that they do not stray from their devotion to Jehovah, punishments are inflicted upon impure souls to suffer endlessly. Thus, souls seek redemption out of fear of punishment in Hell. Those thus redeemed will 15 praise God and He will shine in all His glory. Ultimate object is Jehovah's gratification. It can be concluded from the above that the purpose behind the Creation was selfishness of Jehovah. Because Jehovah created the world so that the souls will know His glory, praise Him and bow down to Him with fear and He will shine in all His glory, it can be concluded that before the creation of the world Jehovah did not shine in all His glory. He saw this surely as a limitation in Him and desiring to remove this inadequacy, He proceeded to create the world. If His glory was complete before the creation, then it was needless to do a deed to increase His glory. This deed, if it was meant to reveal His glory to the souls, was not devoid of selfishness. Neither could He have created world to reveal His glory for the sake of the souls, because that will contradict the fact that there were no souls before the creation of the world. Had Jehovah desired to augment His glory by shining through the souls He was going to create, the acts of shining and creation will become mutually cause and effect and this will lead to a 16 logical fallacy known as " mutual dependency - any onyashrayam" 7 . Because He Himself was there to experience His glory, it would be improper to say that Jehovah's glory was shining completely prior to creation but remained unappreciated and He created souls so that they will experience and praise His glory. Whatever way we may view at it, we can conclude that Jehovah did feel an inadequacy as His glory was not shining. Because He had a sense of inadequacy, He cannot be whole (poorna); because He worried about the inadequacy and tried to remove it, He cannot be eternally Joyful; because He started creation for His own joy, He has attachment or aversion towards that which pleases or displeases Him and thus He is suffering from delusion which is the root cause of attachment and aversion; because He did not know the means to remove his inadequacy in the beginning, he did not have beginning-less knowledge; because He did not create the souls in the beginning, he does not have beginning-less doership; because He acquired doership later, his doership is an 'effect' and there must be another person as its 'cause'; because He gained 'doership' This is the fallacy of mutual dependence i.e., "A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A". This leads to fallacious reasoning. 17 from someone else He does not possess sovereignty; because He lost His nature by gaining 'doership' from someone, He is not changeless; because He is neither changeless nor adequate, He is neither without a beginning nor is He eternal or pervading; because He created souls for His own joy and caused them to commit sin and suffer in eternal Hell, He is bereft of justice, compassion and goodness; because He did not know which souls were pure and had to find this out by testing them by giving them commandments after they were made to take birth on Earth as sinners, He is without omniscience; because He could neither be joyful nor the make souls praise Him without making them sinners and causing them sorrow, it is evident that He is without omnipotence. Since He has defects such as inadequacy, sorrow, desire, hatred, delusion, dependence, changeability, non- pervading, injustice, hard-heartedness, vice, limited knowledge and limited power, Jehovah does not possess Godliness. He is proved to be a sinner. Since our 8 scriptures declare that these defects are the results of the bondage of "ego, karma and Maya 9 ", Jehovah is indeed subject of bondage and therefore not independent. When we Hindu scriptures Maya is the impurity that binds the souls to the sense objects through desires and ignorance. 18 analyze the above characteristics of Jehovah from the standpoint of Saiva Siddhanta 10 , it could be concluded that Jehovah is a mere being (pashu) who, as per karmas accumulated from His past lives, is born with a physical body; is subject to limitations in knowledge, power and capacity to experience joy and sorrow and dies at the end of his life term like any other human being. It is the opinion of some Christian scholars that Jehovah from time immemorial had made a resolve, without any reason, to create the world at a certain point of time, at a certain location and in a certain manner and that accordingly He created the world, without any reason, at a certain point of time. But this is not acceptable because it is not contained in Bible and is contradictory to scriptural statements such as "I made man for my glory". If it is true Jehovah had the resolve from time immemorial, without any reason, to create the world at a certain point of time, at a certain location and in a certain manner, He should have had a similar resolve regarding sustenance and annihilation of the world. This implies that Jehovah will grant Heaven or Hell to souls as per Saiva Siddhanta is an ancient Indian philosophy according to which Siva is the ultimate and supreme reality, omniscient, omnipresent and unbound. Siva is the 'Pati'(lord) and the souls are 'pashus' (animals) - Translator. 19 the above resolve and not based on their sins or merits. Souls need not strive to become worthy of Salvation and the Bible, which bids the souls to have faith and make efforts towards this end, bears therefore no relevance. Therefore, Jehovah who revealed Bible to the world is unwise. Some might say that it is not befitting the souls to question the purpose behind God's creation and that God's actions are beyond human logic. This would give rise to logical fallacy known as // anishtaprasangam ,/11 . Persons belonging to every religion would hold their scriptures as God's own words. If anyone, after a critical study of scriptures of a religion, points out any flaw and declares them as false and worth rejecting, he is countered with an argument by the faithful of that religion that scriptures are God's work and are beyond the logic of souls whose knowledge is limited and that God can act as per His wish. If so, all religions have to be considered as true and equal. The Christians' claim that their religion is the only true religion does not therefore hold water. If one says that purpose of creation is beyond comprehension of souls it cannot be accepted as This is a logical fallacy wherein one's arguments lead one to undesired conclusion. 20 Bible clearly states Jehovah made this word for His glory. For that matter, no scripture deals with subjects which are incomprehensible. In spite of Jehovah's admitting creation of world for His own glory, if one says that purpose of creation is beyond words, it is equivalent to one calling his mother barren. From the above analysis of purpose of Creation, it is proved that Jehovah doesn't have characteristics of God. 21 Material Cause Oh! Christian preachers, Does not your Bible say that Jehovah created the world out of void? Cause should always precede an effect. The effect is, however, contained in latent form in the cause and it becomes manifest when efficient cause 12 comes into action later. For instance, the pot was in latent form in the clay and it became manifest when the potter created it out of clay. Bible mentions only efficient cause (Jehovah) for Creation which is an effect and is silent about material cause of Creation. This is no way logical. If it is argued that God could create the world out of void because He is omnipotent, it doesn't fit. Omnipotence is the power to make everything function smoothly without any obstacles. Doing thing in an improper way instead of adopting right means is not a sign of omnipotence. For instance, to put a mountain within a mustard seed without changing their respective vastness and smallness is not possible. Not doing such a feat, doesn't strip God of His 12 'Efficient cause' of an 'effect' is the person who creates it using 'material cause'. 22 omnipotence. Otherwise, just because God doesn't have the power to create another omnipotent God or to destroy Himself, He would be deemed not omnipotent. Since this would not be acceptable to you, creating world from a material cause would not take away God's omnipotence. If it is said that God Himself is both material cause and efficient cause of the world, it is not logical. Logic is that an effect is a modified material cause. Just as the thread used to weave a white cloth should itself be white, the God, who is the material cause of the world which is both sentient and insentient, should necessarily possess these characteristics. This is possible because one cannot possess opposite qualities at the same time. Were God to be part sentient and part insentient, He would be comprised of parts, hence an effect and would cease to be the supreme cause. As per the basic dictum in logic, ^raTf ^n^-h ^TtRT cm^-h, WT ^dHdiR, whatever is made up of parts is an effect such as pot, cloth, etc. From the above analysis of material cause of Creation, it is proved that Jehovah doesn't have characteristics of God. 23 Initial Creation Oh! Christian preachers, Why did Jehovah create the primeval man and woman devoid of discrimination? Had they discrimination, why did they eat the forbidden fruit and fail to know that to refrain from doing forbidden things is right and to do them is wrong? Why weren't they initially bestowed with the knowledge of good and evil that they gained after eating the forbidden fruit? Why did Jehovah plant a useless tree in the Garden of Eden where they were sent to live though they had no discrimination? Suppose a father brings home a pretty looking poisonous fruit, bids his children to stay away from it and in his absence the children get tempted, eat the fruit and fall sick, will you blame the children instead of the father? Similarly, would not the blame for the primeval man and woman turning sinners fall Jehovah instead of the man and woman? Is Jehovah justified in not killing the man and woman after they ate the fruit forbidden by Him (though on eating the fruit they were to die on the same day)? If it was out of compassion for the man 24 and woman, why didn't omniscient Jehovah foresee the events? If eating forbidden fruit was to give knowledge of good and evil, is it not cheating on the part of Jehovah that He did not want them to acquire this knowledge? If it is said that it was not so, the tree had no power of bestowing such knowledge and that it was merely a symbol to indicate that abiding by Jehovah's commands is good and violating them is evil, this interpretation not being contained in the scripture cannot be accepted. The scripture further says, "After eating the forbidden fruit, their eyes opened" . Why did Jehovah plant that tree in the Garden of Eden and forbid the man and woman from eating its fruit? If His purport was to make them realize that to obey His commands is good and to disobey them is bad, why did He give this command which was of no use to either Himself or others? Had God provided them with discrimination at the time of creating them, they would have known that God is the ultimate cause and that it is good to obey Him and bad to violate. The tree of knowledge then becomes redundant. If Jehovah forbade man from eating the fruit of the tree in order to know whether or not the man would obey his command, it would mean He 25 lacked foreknowledge and was, therefore, not omniscient. If it is argued that Jehovah had given free will to man and man alone is responsible for his mistakes and that Jehovah was not to be blamed, it is not acceptable. For, if a father allows freedom to his innocent children and the children commit grave mistakes, who is to blame, the children or the father? Is He justified in giving freedom to persons devoid of discrimination? Can Satan have power to beguile and to bring to harm the man whom Jehovah created in His own image? If Jehovah was absent when Satan tempted the woman, it is evident that Jehovah is not omnipresent. If He was not aware of that Satan was to tempt the woman, it is evident that Jehovah is not omniscient. If He knew about Satan's intention, but failed to prevent the happenings, it is evident that Jehovah is not omnipotent. If He was aware of the happenings and allowed them to take place, it is evident that Jehovah is without compassion. Can he who, even after seeing his child being attacked by a beast, does not try his best to rescue the child and remains quiet, be called a father? Never! Is it justified to consider Jehovah as father of all beings? If intention of Jehovah was to punish Satan and redeem the man later, it can be deemed as an 26 eccentric act, since it is unwise to acquire both disease and medicine. It is said that it was Satan who spoiled man's mind. If it is so, there should have been an evil spirit who should have spoiled an angel's mind and turned him into Satan. Since there was no such spirit in existence at that time, Jehovah should be the evil spirit who spoiled everyone. Why did Jehovah curse the serpents as a whole while it was Satan who came in the form of serpent and beguiled men? Is it justified that the innocent serpents were victims of the curse whereas the actual culprits, i.e. Satan, the tree of knowledge and Jehovah who created them received no such curse? While it was only the primeval men who disobeyed Jehovah's command, why did He decide to extend the curse on all their descendants? And the LORD was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. He was sorry that He made them - Genesis 6:6, 7. Having created men of His own accord, why should Jehovah feel sorry about that? His sadness over the degradation of men from pure souls to sinners is understandable. After all, Men only turned into sinners and did not cause any other harm. But, in the case of Satan who was initially an angel created by God, not only did the 27 angel sin and turn himself into Satan but he turned men also into sinners. Thus Jehovah ought to have felt sad about the grave misdeeds of Satan, which he did not, but He chose to worry about men's deeds. Why is it so? It can be concluded that if Jehovah could not foresee, at the time of creation, the occurrence of these troubles, He is not omniscient, if He had the foreknowledge of these events, He is devoid of compassion and His later repentance is only pretence. If one knows the certain events will take place in certain manner, will he not decide a definite course of action to be taken to achieve the end? If so, won't everything happen as planned by Jehovah and not go awry? If it goes wrong won't it mean that Jehovah is devoid of omniscience and omnipotence? If nothing has gone wrong, it would mean that things happened as per Jehovah's design. So, there is no justice at all in attributing all sins to men instead of to Jehovah. There is scriptural evidence that everything was predetermined by God - According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love - Ephesians 1-4, In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will - 28 Ephesians 1:11, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose - Romans 8:28, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren - Romans 8:29, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified - Romans 8:30, Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain - Acts 2:23, What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory - Romans 9:22,23, But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth - Thessalonians 2:2:13. It can be seen from the above that Jehovah had decided that things should occur in a certain manner. It is therefore clear that all ill occurrences took place just as designed by Jehovah. Therefore, punishing the souls for the sins committed Jehovah is grave injustice. 29 From the above analysis of 'initial creation', it is proved that Jehovah doesn't have characteristics of God. 30 Evil Qualities Oh! Christian preachers, Not only have you falsely assigned Jehovah with divine qualities like omniscience, etc which He did not possess, but you also concealed evil qualities like revengefulness, anger, jealousy, cruelty, praise-loving, worry, dishonesty, etc which He actually possessed. We shall proceed to prove with the help of the Bible, which you hold as true, that Jehovah possesses all the above evil qualities. From the following it can be seen that Jehovah was jealous - I am a Jealous God - Exodus 20:5, you shall worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous - Exodus 34:14, Jehovah is a jealous God - Joshua 24:19. From the following it can be seen that Jehovah was angry: There is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun - Numbers 16:46, Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them - Exodus 32:10. From the following it can be seen that Jehovah was envious: 31 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden - Genesis 3:22, 23. Noticing the people trying to build a very tall tower, Jehovah felt that will achieve great fame due this act and He broke their unity and scattered them (Genesis 11). From the following it can be seen that Jehovah was cruel: Jehovah killed all the first-born lives in Egypt - Exodus 12, With the intention of enhancing His own glory, Jehovah made Pharaoh hard heartened, made him disobey Jehovah and killed Pharaoh and his army by drowning them in the sea - Exodus 14. Jehovah killed two sons of Aaron when they appeared in His presence- Leviticus 16:1, the LORD smote Nabal, that he died- Samuel 1:25-38. Further He caused riots amidst Israelites and other tribes and decimated several lives. It is said in many places in the Bible that Jehovah strove to enhance His glory. So, it is evident that He was prone to praise. Jehovah was pleased after Creation and later repented for His creation. This shows that He was not free from sadness. He blessed the midwives Shiprah and Puah even though spoke lie - Exodus 32 1. Since it is said that Jehovah sent a person to utter a lie which caused the death of Ahab and his army, it becomes evident that Jehovah is dishonest (1 Kings 22). From the following it can be seen that Jehovah was evil: Jehovah instigated Israelites to flee with jewels borrowed from their neighbours - Exodus 11. When David forcefully married the widow of Uriah, Jehovah commanded David's wives to sleep with the neighbour - 2Samuel 12. Instead of punishing Abraham and Isaac who spoke lies, Jehovah blessed them - Genesis 22, 26. The LORD said to Rosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD - Hosea 1:2. I consider that the above instances are adequate and end my argument in this context. If I am to dwell further on the evil qualities, actions and utterances of Jehovah, it will be too elaborate. 33 Image of God It is said that Jehovah created man in His own image (Genesis 1:26, 27). Is He formless or has He a form? If He is formless, the man created in His own image should also have been formless. Since man has a form, Jehovah should also have a form. If 'image' stands for the soul and not the body, did Jehovah create man's body or soul or both? Since it is said in the Bible, And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul - Genesis 2:7, and man was created in Jehovah's own image and soul, being the breath of God, was already there and was not created, it was the body and not the soul that Jehovah created. If 'image' stands for knowledge, the things will become more complicated. For, if man was created in the form of knowledge, will not the knowledge shine in the man? If it shone, will not the man be able to differentiate between good and evil? If he was so able, will he be tempted at the words of his woman? Never! So, 'image' stands for body and not for knowledge. Besides, if 'image' stands for knowledge, it will mean that the knowledge the man possessed before eating the forbidden fruit was only the 34 knowledge Jehovah had and that Jehovah did not have the knowledge which man acquired after eating the fruit. In case, Jehovah was in possession of this knowledge, He did not have it naturally but should have acquired it after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day - Genesis 3:8. Since Jehovah preferred cool of the day it can be presumed that He differentiates between heat and cold, sorrow and joy, etc. There are many more such instances. But, we will set them aside. Based on the above discussions it can be concluded that Jehovah doesn't possess the characteristics of God. Therefore, Hebrew appellations such as Elohim meaning Venerable, glorious', Elion meaning Tord of air, Jehovah meaning 'self-created, living one, immutable, one without beginning or end' and Shaddai meaning 'overlord, supreme judge' and Greek appellations such as Theos meaning 'God' and Kurios meaning 'creator' do not at all befit Jehovah. 35 Life of Christ We shall now demonstrate that Jesus Christ also does not possess divinity at all. Josephus was the historian who recorded the events as they took place during Jesus' life time in European continent. If Jesus actually lived at that time and had astounded the public through miracles like bringing the dead back to life, would Josephus omit to record these facts in his work? Perhaps he didn't come to know of these facts. Even then, would he fail to notice the transformation of day into night at the time of crucifixion of Christ? Even if he had so failed, would he fail to remember the Earthquake that took place at the time of crucifixion? Besides, why the year, month and date of birth of Jesus were left out to be specified in the Bible? Nor does the Bible contain the date of crucifixion, which is an occurrence more important than his birth. Based on the appearance of a new star at the time of his birth, it should be possible to determine the time of his birth. None of the astronomers from places like India, China, Persia and Europe have recorded the appearance of such a star. Therefore it cannot be 36 said conclusively that a person named Jesus ever lived. Assuming that Jesus actually lived, was anything especially noticeable in him from birth unlike normal children? Was he born without being conceived in the womb of a woman? Was his birth marked by any world famous miracle? Were there any miracles not so famous? Was he born, unlike ordinary children, with extra heads or hands? Did he get up and walk as soon as he was born and start preaching? Did he grow up without any hunger, thirst, sleep or nature's calls? His birth was so inauspicious that first, his mother was suspected of her chastity and second, three thousand children below two years got killed and the entire region turned bleak due to this great sorrow of the people. Will the birth of the son of God make the people grieve instead of rejoicing? Never! Therefore like any other human being, he remained confined in mother's womb, underwent all the pains of birth, took birth as per past karma, caused suffering to people and committed blasphemy after he grew up, wandered many places and was crucified at the age of thirty three for his grave sins, moaned aloud in indescribable pain and died. It is evident from the above that he was more sinful than any ordinary soul. 37 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father - Mark 13:32. It is evident from the above that there is only one omniscient God (Father) and Jesus does not possess this power and so Jesus is not omniscient. If it is contended that besides divine nature (divinity) 13 Jesus had human nature (humanity) comprising of hunger, thirst and other weaknesses and that he is referred in the Bible as son of God and son of man as well and that as per the above quotation it is the angels in Heaven and the son (implying son of man) that lacked the knowledge and not the son of God, this is not testified so in Bible. Without admitting that Jesus lacked the knowledge, if you go on arguing thus unreasonably, it would be utter folly as can be seen from the following. If you contend that since the term 'son of God' does not appear in the above quotation, the lack of knowledge should not be attributed to the divine nature of Jesus, the same should not be attributed to his human nature as the term 'son of man' also does not appear in the above quotation. Besides, in the absence of specific mention of either One central Christian doctrine (for most branches) is that Jesus Christ has two natures: humanity and divinity, Christ is at once both fully human and fully divine. 38 'God' or 'man' in connection with the 'son', the lack of knowledge should not be attributed to either divine or human nature but to a 'mere nature' of Jesus. This will mean that Jesus had a third nature in addition to his divine and human natures. This is in contradiction to Bible. There can, therefore, be no second opinion about Jesus not having omniscience. I can quote another instance to support this stand. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet - Mark 11:13. From this sentence also it can be seen that Jesus, like any ordinary human being, had to go near the tree to find whether it bore fruits and that he did not possess omniscience. If you say that this is as an allegory by Jesus i.e. Jesus' seeing from a distance the fig tree having leaves is to be taken for Jesus' seeing from Heaven the prosperous city of Jerusalem, his going near the tree hoping to find fruits is to be taken for his coming to Jerusalem and searching in its citizens for the virtues like justice, kindness and faith, his finding only leaves and no fruits in the tree is to be taken for his not finding no such virtues in them who were putting up, with no faith, a show of observing rituals, his cursing the tree not to bear 39 fruits any longer is to be taken for his cursing Jerusalem to perish without a trace and the withering of the tree soon is to be taken for impending annihilation of Jerusalem, this stand of yours will only strengthen my contention that Jesus was not omniscient. The sign of omniscience is the ability to know, without having to look at Jerusalemites, the fact that Jerusalemites were merely putting up a show of being religious and that they did not have virtues like justice, kindness and faith. Jesus did not come to know this fact even after looking at them from Heaven. He had to go to Jerusalem to find this out. If this is to be taken as a sign of omniscience, everyone can be said to be omniscient. Is it not a gross injustice to curse Jerusalem? Since endowing men with virtues like faith is the responsibility of Holy Ghost, should not Jesus have cursed Holy Ghost who failed to endow the citizens of Jerusalem with virtues? Cursing the fig tree tops his eccentricities. How can it be said that Jesus came to possess omniscience and discrimination on Earth when he never had these qualities while he was in Heaven itself? And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him - Luke 22:43, Jesus, out of fear of Jews, moved about in stealth (John 11). From these it is can be seen that he is devoid of omnipotence and freedom. 40 (Jesus) began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death - Matt 26:37. Since it can be seen from the above that Jesus lacked equanimity and that he was timid to face sorrow and was desirous of joy, he was not ever-joyful. Jehovah Himself has uttered the following about Jesus: Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased - Matt 12:18. Jesus himself says: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord - Luke 13:35. From the above it is evident that Jesus was a mere servant of Jehovah and was liked and blessed by Him. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit - Luke 23:46, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt -Matt 26-39. Since Jesus himself has said the above words, it is clear that there is a Father who is the owns and protects the soul of Jesus, that Jesus is not God, that nothing happen as per Jesus' will and that he has to plead to God if it should happen. It is also said in Bible that when people jeered at Jesus seeing him suffering on the cross, he cried in a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Matt 27:46. So, it is evident that, like any ordinary man, Jesus was scared of death, that because he 41 cried out aloud, he didn't have the courage and strength to bear the agony and that because he was devoted to a demigod who was not omnipotent, his faith and prayer did not bear fruit and he was rendered helpless. It is also said in Bible that when mother of Zebedees children prayed to Jesus to bless 14 her sons he replied, "to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father"- Matt 20:20-23. Thus, Jesus himself admits that he cannot, at his will, grant anyone's desires. Considering these facts, it is certain that Jesus was a mere slave of the God, he served Him, attained glory in His name, laid his life at His feet and acted as per His will and command. If it is argued that Jesus had both human and divine natures and that all the above facts relate to his human nature, it is untenable. It is said in Bible that when Jesus was baptised Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, entered into him making him omnipresent, that he was made powerful by an angel, that he was described as a servant by God and that when he was crucified he cried aloud why God forsook him. Had Jesus possessed divine nature apart from his human nature, all the above 14 by seating them by his side in his kingdom 42 incidents need not have happened. Trying to prove, without adequate grounds, that a person, who grew up as an ordinary man and went around preaching ordinary matters, was of divine nature, is not at all acceptable. If it is contended that statements of Jehovah that Jesus is His son and He is father of Jesus are enough to establish that Jesus possessed divine nature, this cannot be accepted for the following reasons. When Jews asked Jesus why he, being a man, committed blasphemy by calling himself God, he replied, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" - John 10:33-36. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God - John 20:17. Is not this single statement of Jesus sufficient to prove beyond doubt that he is not God? It is evident that God of Jesus was same as the God of others and father of Jesus and father of others were one and the same. Jehovah has also uttered "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" - Jeremiah 31:9. Such utterances are 43 found at several places in Bible. Jehovah calling Jesus as His son was a mere formality just as He called many others His sons and there is no apparent special reason to consider Jesus as the only Son of God. If one has to accept Jesus as God just because he is called son by Jehovah, all the others would also have to be accepted as Gods, amongst whom Ephraim, the eldest son of God, will be deemed to be the eldest God and Jesus, the last in this line, the youngest God. This will amount to there being many Gods and be a matter of ridicule. If it is contended that Jesus was born to Virgin Mary without a union with her husband and hence he is divine, since Mary conceived after her marriage to Joseph, how can it be said that she conceived without any contact with her husband or any other man? If Joseph and Mary led an ascetic life not needing any physical contact, what was the necessity of their getting married? And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son - Matthew 1:25. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples - John 2:12. From the fact that Joseph did unite with Mary till she delivered her first child, it is evident that they united later. From the above term "his mother and his brothren" it is clear that Joseph and Mary had the desire for physical 44 union and did not refrain from physical contact after the birth of Jesus and in all possibility they also lived so before the birth of Jesus. Moreover ever since their marriage they lived together in the same house. How did you come to know that they refrained yet from physical contact? If they had stated so, it should be with view to shield their pride or for some other reason. Your claim that Jesus was born to a virgin is, therefore, incorrect. O disciples of Jesus, how can one believe the stories fabricated by you to glorify your master many years after death of Jesus? Since it is a pure lie that Jesus was born to Mary without any male contact, he cannot be considered as God owing to his virgin birth. Even assuming that he had a virgin birth, Jesus can utmost be considered as special amongst men and it will an overdoing to assign Godhood to a person born out of a womb. You say that Jesus was born untouched by inherited sin (janmapapasambandham). Since it is a divine rule that the original sin will invariably pass on from primeval man to all his descendants, Jesus should automatically inherit the sin as per the above divine order, as he was born to Mary, a descendant of primeval man. If you say that Jesus was pure and so he did not inherit sin, it is not at all reasonable, for, God is impartial and all the 45 souls which are pure before taking birth are said to inherit sin on their birth and Jesus cannot be an exception. Jesus was dependent on the Grace of God as can be seen from his appeal to God, "O God, why did you forsake me?" and "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" . Even after a searching the Bible umpteen times, one cannot locate a single statement by Jesus that he is God himself. On what authority do you, therefore, state that Jesus is God? If you say that Jesus did not like to say himself that he is God, why do you go on repeating this nonsense much to his dislike? Why did Jesus go on calling himself son of man? No man goes on saying that he is a man. Some of you, therefore, say that there is a special reason for Jesus calling himself son of man. Yes, I accept, there can be a special reason. Jesus, a carpenter, cornered some illiterate labourers and preached to them that he is son of God and was sent by God. This incurred the anger of Jews who wanted to punish him. Jesus was apprehensive of his getting arrested and punished by them. He, therefore, called himself son of man in order to appease them. This should only be the special reason. In Bible we come across many instances where Jesus goes in hiding to escape being caught by Jews. 46 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom - Matthew 16:27, 28. So says Jesus. From the above it is clear that as per Bible 1890 15 years ago when Jesus lived in this world, he spoke to some people that some of them would live to see the end of the world and the day of Judgement. Is anyone of those people still alive? If alive, they should be at least 1890 years old. Since none so old lives now and since more than 1790 years would have lapsed after all of them died and since the end of world and the day of judgement are yet to come, we can certainly say this statement of Jesus was nothing but a fib. In Europe in the year 1000 AD many Christians believed in the above statement of Jesus and feared that the end of the world was very near made wide propaganda of this by publishing letters. On learning about this, many Christians went to priests and sought refuge. A General with an army, upon seeing a solar eclipse, concluded, "Oh! The end of world has begun. That is why the 15 This book was published in 1890 47 Sun is disappearing. Bit by bit, the whole world will come to an end." He got frightened and ran helter-skelter along with his army. At the same time, many people, abandoning their relatives and property, converged to Palestine believing that Jesus will appear there to save them. In those times, whenever solar or lunar eclipse occurred, people used to flee from homes and hide themselves in the caves. This misfortune befell on them owing to their lack of knowledge of astronomy and geography and undue belief in the words of Jesus whom they revered as God. Even in modern times, the situation is no better. In 1881, some missionaries created public scare by writing off and on in inconsequential magazines about imminent arrival of Jesus. Even though none believed such news, this did not detract the missionaries from continuing to spread such news. From the above arguments, one can conclude that Jesus is not God and one will not at all gain, through Jesus, any happiness either in this world or the next (ihaparaloka 16 ). Now, we shall examine what Jesus opines about this matter. Not everyone 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 - On the Earth or in Heaven or Hell 48 Matthew 7:21. It is clear from the above quote that Jesus himself admits that he is not God and that no one will enter Heaven just by calling Jesus 'Lord'. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God - Matthew 19:17. When a person said that Jesus was good Jesus countered him that no one is good except God. What more needs to be said in this connection? If this is not enough to prove that Jesus is not God, you may refer to passages about Trinity in the Bible. If you contend that Jesus said so because Jesus could gauge the minds of people and he knew that the person calling him good did not believe that Jesus was God, this explanation is not supported by Bible. Even if Bible supports this, it it is certain that Jesus was not capable of knowing the minds of others. Because Jesus made Judas his disciple without knowing that Judas would take money and betray him and as soon as he knew about the betrayal by Judas, Jesus was greatly distressed and cursed him. There are many more such instances and we shall consider them later in this work. If you contend that Jesus can be deemed to be God in view of the various miracles he performed, we shall examine to find out whether Jesus really performed all those miracles. 49 First, Jesus won over Satan and drove him away. If one tries to find out who this Satan was and who created him, Bible is totally silent about this. Bible commentators say that in the beginning of creation God created thousands of angels and cursed those angels who did not submit to His will and Satan is one such cursed angel. From where did these commentators obtain this knowledge which is found nowhere in the Bible. Did any angel reveal this knowledge to them in their dreams just as an angel spoke to Joseph in his dream? Even if the story about Satan is accepted, Jesus cannot still be accepted as God. Is it not due to God that Satan fell to lower region? Were Jesus God, will Satan dare come near him? Would not have Satan either fled at the sight of Jesus or approached Jesus and fallen at his feet? When people possessed with evil spirits come to the altar of demigods like Madan, Kali, Ayyanar, and Sangili Bhootathan will not the spirits, releasing hold on those persons, flee wailing "Oh, I am willing leave and here I go"? On the contrary, Satan was least hesitant to lay hold on Jesus. In support of his you may refer to Matthew 4:1-4, Luke 4:1-13. It may be seen therein that Satan caught hold of Jesus, made him starve, dragged him to many places and bid him to bow down to Satan. Thus, 50 evident that Jesus had no power either to deter Satan from approaching him or to stop Satan from bothering him or to drive him away at the very outset. If you deny this and contend based on , "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil" - Matthew 4:1, it was only with the permission of Holy Spirit that Satan caught hold of Jesus to test him, the following questions arise. Why at all did the Holy Spirit lead Jesus to wilderness to be tested by Satan? Did the Holy Spirit imagine that people would believe in Jesus when after passing all tests by Satan he is certified by Satan as son of God? As per the principle of Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. It would mean that Son is not different from Father and Father is not different from Holy Spirit. That Son was subjected to Satan's tests would mean that Father and Holy Spirit as well were tested. That God allowed Satan to test Jesus (and therefore Himself) would mean that God felt that Satan may be more powerful than Him, was not sure that Satan was weaker than Him and may be, He felt that this was a sure way of making people believe in Jesus. Let us now examine what Satan's tests were and whether Jesus really passed them. When, 51 finding Jesus hungry, Satan asked him to order the stone to turn into bread, Jesus did no such thing. Is this passing the test? What else did Jesus do then? He merely said that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Why did he utter such folly and why did he not convert the stones into bread? It was not because he was not hungry. He was hungry as can be seen from "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred" - Matthew 4:2. If it was because he had conquered hunger, how is it he became hungry in the wilderness especially when nothing was available to eat? If Jesus was capable of appeasing hunger with the words of God, as he claimed in his reply to Satan, why didn't he make use of this 'divine remedy' to appease his hunger when he was suffering from hunger that made him lose his temper and curse the fig tree? Had Jesus tried this remedy and failed, it would mean that his reply to Satan (Matthew 4:4) is an utter lie. He did not turn stones into bread neither because he was not hungry nor because he had control over his hunger nor because he did not want to turn the stones into bread. It was only because he did not possess any divine or even magical power. His words, 52 sometimes, were reminiscent of the proverb 17 " making faces (grimace) when one is dumbf ounded" . What was then Satan's next test? He carried Jesus to the pinnacle of a temple, bid him to jump down from there saying that angels would be there to protect him. Jesus did nothing this time also. How can you still say that Jesus vanquished Satan? Did he give any reply to Satan like he did earlier? Yes. Jesus told Satan that scriptures ordain us not to tempt Lord the God. What an absurd thing to say so! Why didn't Jesus jump when he was challenged by Satan? If it is said that it was out of patience, why did this embodiment of patience sometimes unjustly curse and utter unkind words? It was not out of patience that Jesus did not jump; he was in fact scared of doing so. If you contend that Satan tested Jesus as ordained by Holy Spirit, it was certainly the duty of Satan to test Jesus and it was duty of Jesus to come out as a winner instead of evading the tests. Didn't Jesus, then, go against the will of Holy Spirit and the God by dodging Satan's tests and saying meaningless words? If Jesus was at least bestowed with divine Grace, couldn't he have jumped believing in the angels to come to his protection? Or couldn't he The author is referring to a proverb in Malayalam 53 have, by his glory, either pushed Satan down or make Satan have an illusion of Jesus jumping? But, he did none of these. Satan caught hold of Jesus, twirled him like a top, took him to the top of mountain, showed him all the kingdoms and said, "If you kneel at my feet, I shall give all these to you". Trembling with fear, Jesus could merely utter meaningless words. Had he vanquished and chastised Satan we could have deemed Jesus to be a victor and saviour. In fact it was not Jesus who vanquished Satan but it was vice versa. Therefore, it is certain that Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - is weaker than Satan. How can one who failed to win Satan be God? Is not Satan, who, out of pity, let off Jesus without any disgrace, more compassionate than Jehovah? Once some evil spirits, that possessed a man, demanded one thousand swine as their food in order to leave the man, Jesus agreed to meet this undue demand and the evil spirits then killed one thousand swine by drowning them in the sea 18 . What a great loss to the owner of the swine! 19 What an instance of Jesus' divinity! Once Jesus, in the throes of hunger, cursed a fig tree as it didn't give him fruits and it withered 18 Mark 5:13 No mention is made of what happened to the poor pig-hearder whose livelihood must have been ruined - Translator 54 at once. This is indeed a great miracle! How can a tree bear fruits out of season? Even during season, one will have to pluck them from the tree. How can a tree guess one's need and give fruits to him? Is it not as per laws of God that all trees bloom and bear fruits in the proper season? If Jesus were God, isn't he the cause for the tree for having no fruit? So, why did he, instead of cursing himself, curse the tree for no fault of it? Was his hunger so agonising that he lost his temper? How could Jesus, who could not contain hunger even for a day, fast for forty days? It is certainly a lie. If it is contended that Jesus could bear hunger but only to show his glory to his disciples he cursed the tree, it would have been real glory had he made the tree bear fruits. It would have appeased the hunger of Jesus and his disciples and strengthened their faith in him. It seems, Jesus never knew to do right things at right time. If at all he fasted for forty days, it was not of his accord. In fact he was forced to starve because neither anyone brought him food nor could he go in search of food as Satan detained him in the wilderness. Assuming that Jesus walked over water, this cannot be considered as a miracle. This technique 55 called "Jalastambham 20 " is, nowadays, known even to ordinary men. It is also seen that Jesus performed many such feats which magicians, medics and mesmerisers do nowadays. We shall not enter into their details as they are insignificant. If it is contented that Jesus must be viewed as God since he brought the dead back to life, it is certain that he did not resurrect anyone vide the statements in Acts 26:23 and Revelations 1:5 which say that Jesus is the first amongst those who rose from the dead. Had Jesus resurrected anyone at all, that person would be the first amongst those who rose from the dead and Jesus the last amongst them because it is not at all said anywhere in the Bible that Jesus resurrected anyone after he himself rose from the dead. If it is contended that Jesus is the first amongst those who came to life from the dead and not first amongst those who were brought back to life from the dead, everyone brought back to life from the dead, is also one who came to life from the dead. When one says, "I woke up yesterday night hearing the sound of thunder", that means that though his waking up was caused by the 20 To stand or walk on water - this is one of the psychic powers acquired by Yogic practices 56 sound of thunder, he woke up by himself. Similarly, one who is brought back to life from the dead is also one who came back to life from the dead. Next, did Jesus come back to life from the dead by his own power? Not at all! Jesus was brought back to life by God as can be seen from the following: we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead - Romans 4:24, God hath raised him from the dead - Romans 10:9, whom God hath raised from the dead - Acts 3:15, (In the following references from Corinthians-15, the former mentions about resurrection of Christ without attributing it to any agency while the latter mentions about his resurrection by God 21 ) if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead - ICorinthians 15:12, we have testified of God that he raised up Christ - ICorinthians 15:15. If the Biblical statement 'Jesus was the first among those, who rose from the dead 1 is true, those Biblical statements which say that 'he raised the dead' can only be false. If it is contended that Jesus is God because he died as sacrifice for the sins of all souls, the following questions arise. To which God was he offered as sacrifice? Who killed him as sacrifice? 21 This implies that all the apostles and saints who mentioned about Christ's resurrection were aware that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. 57 There was no sacrifice as such. In fact Jews caught hold of Jesus and killed him for his crimes. Jews wouldn't have killed him unless he was guilty. Had Jesus incarnated willingly on Earth to become sacrifice for the sins of all souls, why did he go into hiding instead of moving openly among the Jews? If he was not hiding, why is it said in John 11:57 that both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he (Jesus) were, he should show it, that they might take him? Why couldn't they find him even after issue of such an order? It is, therefore, certain that he moved incognito. In the end, as his fear increased, he grew restless, moved away to a hideout. If this was not due to fear, why, in John 11:53-54, is it said, 'then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples?' In John 8:58-59, it is also said, 'then they took up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by', and in Luke 4:29-30, 'And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city 58 was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way'. If it is further contended that it was decided by the Father and agreed upon by the son that Jesus ought to suffer and die on the day of Passover Festival, when all Israelites and people belonging to other tribes would gather, so that on the Day of Judgement nobody could plead that they didn't know that a saviour had come to the Earth, suffered and died for them (because it is not sufficient if Jesus suffers before only a few persons like other martyrs) and that Jesus had to hide himself so that he would die on the day of Passover, the Bible does not bear testimony to this. Besides, if, as you opine, the Father wished that the whole world ought to know of the suffering of Jesus, did the whole world come to know of this? Does the whole world know of this now? Will the whole world know of this in times to come? Countless men in various countries have died without even hearing the name of Jesus. Many more will most likely die like this. This implies that the Father made no such wish. Since this wish of the Father has not come to pass, we can't be sure that all His other wishes will come to pass. Had God wished only people of that region to know of the suffering of Jesus, why do you make it your mission to spread the gospel in other parts of the 59 world? Besides, since you said that Jesus did not want to suffer before the time as decided by the Father, it would imply that Jesus didn't at all undergo suffering willingly, he underwent suffering by the decision of the Father and that he would never have undergone suffering had it not been ordained by the Father. Furthermore, had the Father fixed a time for Jesus to suffer, Jesus would not have to suffer before this time. Why, then, did he hide himself before this time came? If Jesus hid himself because he was not aware that a time for his suffering had been fixed by the Father, it would imply that Jesus gave no consent to undergo suffering and die. So, it is certain that Jesus underwent suffering neither for the sake of other souls nor out of his free will. His suffering was brought about by his fate. If you say that, though Jesus knew of the Father's decision that Jesus ought to suffer, Jesus did not know the time set for this and so Jesus went into hiding, it would imply that Jesus hid from Jews out of nothing but fear. If Jesus did not know the exact day of his suffering, shouldn't he have hidden himself on the day he was caught? On the other hand, he did not even try to escape but he allowed the Jews to arrest him. Why did he do so? Why didn't he use his 'power of vanishing' which he is said to have used on many occasions? You 60 cannot conclude that it was in submission to the will of the Father that Jesus went into hiding initially and subsequently surrendered to the Jews, because you say yourself that he was unaware of the day set for his suffering. In fact Jesus didn't try to escape when Jews apprehended him because there was no chance of escape. There was neither a decision by the Father to sacrifice Jesus as sin offering nor any day set for his suffering nor did Jesus know of this decision nor did he give his consent to the Father. Had Jesus possessed any knowledge or belief that God had decided to give him as sin offering in sacrifice, he would not have gone into hiding. Otherwise, why didn't Jesus bless Judas who betrayed him instead of cursing, 'woe unto that man, by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born' (Matthew 26:24)? If it is argued that Jesus merely pointed out the truth so that Judas is not let off without admonition for his betrayal, the curse ought to have been directed at God, who was the root cause of all the happenings. Since Jesus did not do so, this curse was indeed due to grief. If it is contended that all-knowing Jesus, out of his divine nature, cursed Judas with a view to reveal beforehand the betrayal by Judas, it is obvious that Jesus did not possess foreknowledge 61 as he had earlier accepted Judas as his apostle without realising that Judas would betray him. If Jesus had done so knowingly, the blame for the betrayal would also fall upon him. In any case, if one is to be cursed at all, should it not be Jehovah, the root cause of all his suffering? So, all these explanations for Judas alone to be blamed do not fit. Jesus, like anyone in a similar situation, could have anticipated his impending misfortune in the nick of time. So, it is a lie to say that he had foreknowledge. Now, was the reason for Jesus' suffering the betrayal by Judas or the resolve of God or both? If the cause was the betrayal by Judas, death of Jesus was certainly not a sin offering. If the cause was God's resolve, Judas, who acted in accordance with God's will, cannot be called a sinner and condemned to Hell. If both were the cause, it is a gross injustice to label one as good and the other as evil. Having been betrayed by Judas, while in hiding in fear, Jesus did curse him with a vengeful heart. From the above, it is proved that Jesus did not die as 'sin offering'. Earlier we saw that Jesus did not come back to life himself but was brought back to life by God. Now, we shall prove that God too didn't bring him back to life and that after dying on the cross, Jesus 62 never came back to life. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:17 'And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sin'. Since resurrection of Christ is a basic tenet in Christian faith, I am writing another book on Resurrection. So, this topic is dealt with here in brief. To examine whether or not Jesus resurrected, it is essential to look for any contemporary witness of this incident. All the Jews who lived during that period have averred that this is an utter lie. We shall look for testimony in the Bible. None of the apostles say that they have witnessed it themselves. They merely quote others who had witnessed. And when they (eleven disciples) saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted - Matthew 28:17. Matthew was one the eleven disciples who saw Jesus after resurrection, but we do not know whether he was amongst those who doubted. Had he actually seen, why didn't he say so? He is, therefore, one of those who had doubt. But, why did some of the disciples doubt? Was it not Jesus they saw? The chief disciples accompanied and served him for years and if they themselves doubted and didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection, how can then we believe that Jesus resurrected 1890 years ago? Furthermore, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who have mentioned that Jesus resurrected from the dead contradict one another in their gospels. I shall 63 illustrate this. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene (one person) early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre - John 20:1, In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two persons) to see the sepulchre - Matthew 28:1, And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they (many persons) came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun - Mark 16:1-2. The angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it - Matthew 28:2, And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man (not an angel) sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted - Mark 16:4-5, And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men (neither an angel nor a young man) stood by them in shining garments - Luke 24:4. According Luke they saw neither an angel as said by Matthew nor a young man sitting there as said by Mark. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, 64 and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain - John 20:11-12. According John the women saw neither an angel as said by Matthew nor a young man sitting as said by Mark nor two men as said by Luke. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest - Luke 24:9, And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid - Mark 16:8. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him - Matthew 28:9. It is said in John 20:14 that Mary Magdalene neither touched nor recognised Jesus. It is said in John 20:15-19 that it was Mary Magdalene who saw Jesus first after resurrection and he was seen by the 11 disciples afterwards in Jerusalem whereas Matthew 28:16-17 says that 11 disciples met Jesus in Galilee. Luke 24:50-51 says that Jesus was carried up into the heaven from Bethany where as it is said in acts 1:9-12 that Jesus was carried up into heaven from Mount Olivet. It is said in Matthew 12:40 that Jesus prophesied that he (son of man) will be in the heart of the earth (in tomb) for three days and three nights whereas it is said in Mark 14:25-46 that he 65 remained in the tomb only for a day and two nights. Since all the four writers of gospels contradict thus one another, their narrations are not believable at all. What other evidence is there to support the resurrection of Jesus as the gospel accounts have already been refuted and rejected? If it is now contended that though the authors of four gospels contradict one another's accounts of Jesus' resurrection, none of them deny that Jesus resurrected, it is not an adequate proof of the Resurrection. For instance, one person saw a white crow sitting on a desk inside a shop in a place called Attakulangara in Thiruvanantapuram from 6 in the morning till 6 in the evening, a second person saw the same crow during the same period perched on a cot in the house of a person named Kurup in a place called Vembayam, a third person saw the same crow during the same period at the palace at Shankhumukham and a fourth person saw the same crow during the same period inside the main temple in Kottarakkara. Though none of these four witnesses denied the existence of the white crow, would you accept that white crow really existed? Would you rather ridicule them? Certainly you would. This applies to resurrection as well. From the above arguments it is evident that Jesus did not perform any of the miracles, from 66 vanquishing the Satan to Resurrection, described in the Bible. Furthermore, when the Jews after arresting Jesus, blindfolded, ridiculed, then slapped him and asked him, "Who was it that hit you?" he could not name the person who had hit him. Later, when King Herod, who was exceedingly glad to meet Jesus, asked him to perform a miracle, he did nothing. After Jesus was crucified, when the chief priests, Pharisees and the elders challenged Jesus to save himself by coming down from the cross if he was really the King of Israel and that they would belief in him if he did so, Jesus merely stood like a corpse. You consider as miracles Jesus' furtive disappearance when he was about to get stoned or pushed down from the top of the mountain. If so, what happened to his divine powers with which he could have saved himself from the cross? He was in the habit of eluding the soldiers by hiding among the crowd whenever the soldiers came to arrest him. So, they took utmost care to apprehend him and he got arrested. If you say that the day of arrest was preordained by God and Jesus chose not to escape the arrest despite divine powers, everyone can be viewed to possess divine as well as human natures just like Jesus and therefore deemed God. 67 Even if we concede that all these miracles were performed by Jesus, he cannot be called God because Moses, Joshua, Elisha, Elias, et al were also capable of similar miracles. Furthermore, as per Exodus 7:8, when Moses, by the glory of God, performed miracles - such as turning a rod into a snake, water into blood and creating a frog - before the Pharaoh of Egypt, the royal magicians, who were unbelievers, performed the similar and even better miracles. From this it is obvious that miracles could be performed by one who is neither God nor a believer in God. Furthermore, it is said in Matthew 24:24, 'For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect'. So, we need not accept someone as God just because he performs miracles. There is nothing wrong in considering him as a devotee or an enemy of God. After a thorough examination of the Bible, one cannot find even a trace of evidence to prove Jesus God. We have earlier proved with the help of valid arguments that Jesus did not rise after death. We shall now examine what his condition was after death, based on the Bible. Hell is the eternal residence of all sinners. Since Jesus took upon himself sins of all he 68 becomes the greatest sinner and doesn't deserve anything other than falling into the Hell. Besides, it is said in the testimonies of apostles that Jesus went to Hell after death. So, it is certain that Jesus went to Hell. Since it is a tenet of Christianity that there is no return for those who enter Hell, it could be reasonably concluded that Jesus also has not come back from Hell. Since this conclusion is supported by John 20:17 wherein it is said that Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, it is certain that Jesus has not attained Salvation. Since Jesus has not either entered Heaven or attained Salvation, he cannot be omnipresent. Therefore, there is no evidence, either scriptural or rational or empirical, to stop one from concluding that Jesus is still suffering in eternal Hell which he deserved. Therefore, the following names, given to Jesus in the gospel, do not befit him: God (John 20:28), Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matthew 1 :23), God whose throne is forever and ever (Hebrews 1 :8), God who is over all and is blessed for ever (Romans 9:5), King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God (1 Timothy 1:19), Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15), God who laid down his life for us (ljohn 3:16), God who purchased us with his own blood 69 (Acts 20:28), Great God (Titus 2:13), God who manifested in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), True God (ljohn 5:20), Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), God who is Word (John 1;1), Lord of lords (Revelations 17:14), Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11), God who was, who is and who is to come (Revelations 1;8), God who is but one (1 Corinthians 8:6), Lord of hosts (army) (Isaiah 6:5), Lord of glory ( ICorinthians 2:8), Lord both of the dead and living (Romans 14:9), Lord from Heaven (ICorinthians 15:47), God who is Alpha and Omega - the beginning and the end (Revelations 22:13), Amen (Revelations 3:14), King of kings (Revelations 19:16), Immutable One (Hebrews 1:12), He who searches the reins and the hearts (Revelations 2:23), He who is before all things (Colossians 1:17), He who knows all things (John 16:30), He who created all things (Colossians 1:16), Almighty (Revelations 1:8), He who takes vengeance (2Thessalonians 1:8), The everlasting father (Isaiah 9:6), King (Jeremiah 23:5), He who rewards (Revelations 22:12), He who has power on Earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6), He who resurrects the dead (John 6-54), He who is the same yesterday, and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), The first and the last (Revelations 22:13), The Highest (Luke 1:76), Jehovah (Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 23:6). Having seen your false and irrational arguments and references to never-occurred-miracles aimed to prove that such a Jesus is God, one can only 70 wonder as to why these arguments can't be used to prove any person as God? Even if you venture to spread such false stories for temporary gains, do you expect that all your listeners will lose their sense and believe you blindly? From the above discussions it can be concluded that Jesus doesn't possess the characteristics of God. 71 Reward & Punishment You (Christians) state that Jesus will come as Judge when the World conies to an end. Where do those who die before the hour of Judgement remain, in Heaven or Hell or some other place? If you say that these souls enter some other place, the statements in the Bible that men such as Adam, Abraham, etc. entered Heaven or Hell - well before the hour of Judgement - ought to be false. If the souls enter Heaven or Hell soon after death and experience joy or sorrow, there is no need for judging the souls on the day of Judgement. If you say that it is obligatory to judge the souls, will those who are in Heaven sent to Hell and vice versa after the Judgement? Otherwise, the Judgement will become purposeless. Furthermore, if all those who are in Heaven and Hell at the time of Judgement will be allowed to remain in their respective places, should the souls be judged at all? Therefore, it is an utter falsehood that the souls would be judged on Judgement Day. It is also said that Jesus will examine the deeds of each soul at the time of Judgement. He, who created some souls to undergo sufferings and some others to enjoy pleasures though they did 72 not, at the time of their creation, commit any meritorious or culpable deed, is partial indeed and is, therefore, unfit to be a Judge. Based on which scripture will Jesus Judge the souls? If it is the Bible, could it be used for judgement since it got split into countless versions and it repeatedly contradicts itself as already seen? If the Bible still forms basis for Judgement (of Christians), what scripture will be used to judge people of various countries where the Bible is not at all known? If it is contended that these souls will be judged based on conscience which helps one distinguish good from bad, it can be done only on the basis of traditional scriptures from which one gains the knowledge of good and bad. A person's concept of good and bad conforms to the scriptures which he believes in. If a person's conscience is the yardstick of judgement, the judgement should be based on the scriptures of his own religion. If it is so, your claim 'all will be judged based on the Bible and that scriptures of all other religions are false' would turn out to be a lie. If they too would have to be judged on the basis of the Bible, it would be callous and unfair to punish them for not adhering to the tenets of the Bible which they neither heard nor saw in their lifetime. Jesus, therefore, doesn't have any universal scripture as basis for Judgement. 73 You state that Jesus would hurl into Hell all those souls who didn't believe in him. There would be many souls who would have died while in mother's womb or during birth or during their childhood or who were born blind or deaf or who would have led virtuous lives as dictated by the scriptures of their religion in countries where Christianity is not in vogue. All such souls would never have heard of Christ or believed in him. Some persons following other religion would have continued to practice their own religion till death even after reading Bible as they might not have accepted it as word of God and they too wouldn't have believed in Christ. Would all such souls be sent to Hell or granted Salvation? If they are sent to Hell it would be a grave injustice. If they are granted Salvation, this will go against your proclaiming that those who don't believe in Christ would be sent to Hell. How can it be justified that your God, who created the souls with impure senses, created impure religions, vices like lust, anger, etc., and laid down totally futile laws which none but God could abide by, can accuse these souls of being guilty at the time of judgement? If it is contended that Jehovah did not create the souls impure, did the souls themselves acquire the vices? That the vices are seen in the souls from 74 the moment of their births is a proof enough that the vices were not acquired by the souls. If the souls acquired the vices due to the original sin, how did the primeval souls acquire the imperfect knowledge that led them to commit the original sin? It is evident that the souls were certainly created impure. If it is argued that Jehovah, in the beginning of creation, did not ordain that things should happen in such and such manner, Jehovah's lack of such knowledge at that time could be the only reason for this. Had Jehovah possessed such knowledge, He would certainly have preordained. If events occurred not just as preordained by Jehovah, it would imply that Jehovah lacked omnipotence. You would, therefore, have to admit that things can happen in no manner other than as set by God's laws. From the above discussions, even a child can see that it is a grave injustice that Jehovah, who created souls impure, created the tree of knowledge - issuing at the same time a commandment (not to eat the fruit of knowledge) - and created the Satan, should put the blame on others for the original sin which was an outcome of His own wrong deeds, should make a show of compassion, should pretend to take the sins of the souls upon himself and suffer for their sake, should 75 undergo the sufferings with his humanity 22 only, should take credit as their saviour and should still appear as innocent on the Day of Judgement, should judge the souls and convict them guilty. So, it is totally unfair that Jehovah should convict anyone guilty. Since you yourself say that it is a sin not to believe in Christ and also that he suffered for all the sins of all the souls born before and after him, the suffering undergone by Christ himself is in atonement for the sin of non-believing in him. If at all anyone has to suffer in Hell, it should be only Christ and it is, therefore, unfair to make the souls also suffer in Hell. From the above discussion on 'reward and punishment 1 too, it is clear that Jesus doesn't possess the characteristics of God. 22 One central Christian doctrine (for most branches) is that Jesus Christ has two natures: humanity and divinity, Christ is at once both fully human and fully divine. 76 Story of Holy Spirit You say that Holy Spirit assists God in deeds such as creation. If Jehovah was omnipotent, would he need the assistance of Holy Spirit for any of His deeds? If you explain that Jehovah is not himself incapable of any deed and " assistance of Holy Spirit" means that Holy Spirit consents to all the deeds of Jehovah, there is no scriptural testimony for this. Even if there is a scriptural support, it would only prove that Jehovah is not omnipotent since he needs the consent of Holy Spirit. Why didn't the Holy Spirit create the Bible instead of inspiring the devotees to write it? Jesus should have been endowed with innate purity and knowledge when Holy Spirit created Jesus as flawless human being. If it was so, what was the necessity of the Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus (John 1:32) and when Jesus, in the end, cried aloud in pain why did the Holy Spirit, having descended upon Jesus, failed to rescue him? Why did the Spirit, who sired Jesus from Mary, do nothing when Jesus appealed for His help crying 'My Father, My Father'? Because Satan had assumed the form of a serpent when he came to lure the primeval man to 77 eat the forbidden fruit, Jehovah cursed all serpents declaring them to be the cause of original sin. But, though Holy Spirit had assumed the form of a dove while descending upon Jesus, He did not bless the doves that they won't be killed or eaten by anybody. From the above, it is evident that Holy Spirit doesn't possess the characteristics of God. 78 Trinity This word is not found in the Bible. While the Bible declares Jehovah, the Father to be God, it doesn't declare Jesus so. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together in just three sentences in the Bible. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one - ljohn 5:7. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - Matthew 28:19. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen - 2Corinthians 13:14. Out of these three sentences the first one is found only in the Bibles compiled in Tamil and English languages but not in the Greek Bible, the original version. Many European Christians who were impartial and just found it to be an interpolation and have deleted this sentence from the Bible. So, we need not consider this sentence any further. In the second sentence, is it said that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same or that every one of them is God or that all 79 the three are equal or that every one of these is venerable? No! Since it is not said that these three are either God or one or equal or venerable, how could you accept these three as Holy Trinity bearing the characteristics of God? The third sentence too doesn't say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same or that every one of them is God or that all the three are equal or that every one of these is venerable. Furthermore, Trinity is refuted by this sentence because it makes a mention of "God, son and Holy Spirit ,/ and not "Father, son and Holy Spirit" . This tantamount to that one of these is God while the other two are not. Since Christ is not God, he cannot be included in the Trinity (You may refer to the essay on Trinity, published on 28 th October 1827 by Fr. Rev. Henry Lair for further details). Quoting the words of Father and Christ and also from the statements made by Bible scholars we shall now prove that Trinity is a myth. Thou shalt have no other gods before me - Exodus 20:3. See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me - Deuteronomy 32:39. I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me - Isaiah 45:5. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the 80 children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. - Exodus 3:14-15. In the following quotations, Jesus himself admits the above truth: Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? - Matthew 22:31-32. When someone said that Jesus was good he countered, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments - Matthew 19:17. For there is one God; and there is none other but he - Mark 12:32. My Father is greater than I - John 14:28. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God - Acts 2:22.23 The following sentence shows that there is as much difference between Jesus and God as is there between man and Jesus. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God - 1 Corinthians 11:3. Here the author asks the reader to refer to English Bible. It seems this sentence was not found in the Bible translated into Indian languages in those days. 81 It would be too elaborate if I continue in this vein; I will just give below the names and numbers of chapters and sentences. Exodus 3:14,15 & 20:3; Deuteronomy 4:39, 6:4, 32:39 & 5:7; 2Samuel 7:22; Kings 19:19; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 83:18, 36:10; Isaiah 37:16, 37:27, 40:25, 41:4, 42:8, 44:68, 45:5-6, 45:21-22, 43:10-15; Hosea 13:4; Joel 2:27; Matthew 19:17, 7:21, 12:32-34, 20:23, 26:39, 5-42; John 17:3, 4:34, 5:38, 6:37, 20:17, 14:28; Corinthians 8:3; ITimothy 1:17, 24:5, 6:15-16; James 2:19; Revelations 15:34; Colossians 1:3. Based on the above quotations it can be concluded that there is no such thing as Trinity according to the Bible itself. So, you may better cease using the word Trinity henceforth. Even assuming that 'Trinity' is contained in the Bible, let us examine whether it would stand the test of logic. The meaning of the word 'Trinity' is 'Oneness of the Three'. If three were to become one, will they or will not they still remain separately as three? If it is said that they remain as three even after becoming one, how is this possible? It is not at all logical. Could three pomegranate fruits remain as three and yet become one? Never! So, it is not reasonable to say that three would become one and yet remain as three. If 'three' cease to remain separate and become 'one', the 'three' will no more be there. Let us examine 82 which is the cause and which the effect among 'three' and 'one'. Since 'cause' is that which invariably precedes the 'effect', 'three' is the 'cause' in this case. 'Effect' is that which did not exist in the beginning and then came into being. The 'one' which didn't exist earlier is the 'effect'. When the cause gives rise to the effect, the cause perishes. This means that 'three' perish after becoming 'one'. It can be concluded based on the above logic that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would perish if & when they become 'one' (Trinity). If the 'three' perish to become 'one', would that 'one' at least exist forever? No! 'One' also will perish after certain time since an 'effect' cannot last forever. So, the cause, Father, Son & Holy Spirit and the effect, the 'one' will certainly come to an end. There is another fallacy in saying that 'three' become 'one'. Three ought to undergo a change in order to become 'one. So, Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot become 'one' unless they undergo a change. If 'one' was to become 'three', will it or will it not still remain as 'one'? If it is said that it remains as 'one' even after becoming 'three', it is not at all logical. How can a pomegranate fruit remain as 'one' and yet become three fruits? Thus, the contention that 'one' remained as 'one' and yet 83 became 'three' stands refuted. Amidst 'one' and 'three', 'one' is the cause and 'three' the effect. The cause invariably perishes to become the effect. It follows that the one God perishes to become the 'three' - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As we have seen earlier, an effect invariably perishes after some time. Therefore, the effects, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, will certainly come to an end. If it is contended that though the three are independent entities, they could be said to be one since they are equally powerful, all men should be deemed to be one since they are equal with respect to some qualities. But, all men cannot be deemed to be one since they have some common qualities but differ in all other respects. If you say that the 'three' could be deemed to be one since the three are identical in every respect, it is not acceptable just as we cannot deem three silver coins to be one coin though they are completely identical. Besides, you cannot claim that the 'three' are equal with respect to their deeds, qualities, etc. The Father created the world, made man a sinner, ordered a person who worked on Sabbath day be stoned to death, attempted to kill secretly a person who refused to kill the elders, bid Moses to rob Egyptians, gave Ten Commandments, existed before the creation, sat on the left side of Jesus 84 while receiving the sacrifice and performed many such acts. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and sedition; was crucified to death and sat on the right of the Father in Heaven. Holy Spirit entered Mary causing the birth of Jesus and descended like a dove onto the Earth. From this it is evident that the 'three' are not at all identical in their deeds and qualities. The possibility of three objects becoming one or one object becoming three is true only in the case of finite objects. This is impossible in the case of an infinite and all pervading entity. Can water filled to the brim in a closed vessel, divide itself into two or three parts and then merge again into one? Space is required for an object to divide itself into parts. All pervading entity has no scope to divide itself. It is only inert objects, which are subject to change, that divide themselves or merge into one. It is not reasonable that an infinite entity will divide itself or that many such entities merge into one. Therefore, it is a fallacy to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 'one' and that the 'one' is also the 'three'. Now, we shall deal with this topic in a different way. We shall first examine whether it is possible for 'two' to become 'one' and yet remain 'two'. If it is found possible, we could conclude 85 that 'three' could become 'one' and yet remain 'three'. If it is contended that Father has become Son just as milk becomes curd, and assume that your contention is free from the defect called 'Purnatvadosha' 24 , your comparison is an instance of theory of transformation (Parinamavaada 25 ) according to which the cause perishes to become the effect. When milk becomes curd, milk perishes. As can be seen from this example, the Father has to perish to become the Son. In that case, it would be fallacious to say that Father was in Heaven while the Son was on the Earth since milk that has transformed itself into curd and the curd that was created from milk cannot exist separately in two different places. Therefore, the example of milk and curd is not suitable in the case of Father and Son who are said to exist in different places. There is one more defect in the example of milk and curd. In this example milk perishes and becomes curd. Curd also will not remain unchanged but perish later to become some new object. That something will also perish to become If you conceive two entities that are infinite, it gives rise to a defect called purnatva dosha since both these entities will limit each other. This will make them both finite and thus contradict the initial contention that they are infinite. This theory states that a cause transforms itself to produce the effect. 86 something else. This process will go on endlessly. Based on the above logic we can conclude that the Father perished to become the Son; the Son also perished to become another person; that person also perished to become yet another. This process also would go on endlessly. Therefore, neither the Father nor the Son can exist now. Nor can we know in what form they exist now. Even if we know this, we cannot assume that they will be there in that form forever. Your contention that the Father himself became the Son (like milk becoming curd), therefore, leads to the conclusion that neither the Father nor the Son exists now. If it is contended that it was only a part of the Father that became the Son just as a part of milk turns into curd and the rest remains as it was, if a part of the immutable God modifies, He will become unfit for attributes like immutability. Moreover, when part of the Father transformed into Son, the remaining parts will also transform later governed by the same law that caused the initial transformatio