Why Truth Was Crucified Poem by zaheer uddin

Jesus believed in a single God
While he adorned the earth
and never ever deviate
away from unity- -

Why Jesus did not say trinity
While he lived under the sun
No father, no son, no Holy Ghost
All he preached was one - -

Never said that he was God
Not even the Son of God
The bible shall attest the fact
The truth is still intact

God alone he worshipped
And sought his will divine
To heal the lepers and the blind
To breathe life in a bird of clay - -

Why Jesus in a Vision
would contradict his mission
why did he preach the Mosaic law
so earnestly upon this earth
why strictly did he follow it
and warn his men to do the same
lest they be called
the least among
the kingdom of the Lord- -

Why Did he preach the law at all
if he was to return again
in visions of this man named Paul
to nullify it all -


Paul was no messenger
Not even a disciple
Had never met Jesus in life
was never close to him
and yet he claims
to be above
the trusted men of faith- -

Paul who was named Saul
Was on the contrary
A persecutor of the men who lived
The life that Jesus preached - -

why Jesus should appoint a man
Who persecuted his own
And not his trusted men of faith
To carry forward the light - -


Paul tears up the law apart
no sooner does Jesus depart
he is the one who contradicts
and wipes out all that Jesus preached
during his earthy tour- -

Revelations come from God alone
this is the law of God-

While Paul admits in clear terms
his visions were the truth revealed
Direct from Jesus Christ!

if Jesus was to cleanse mankind
by dying on the cross
why did he never preach this fact
during his stay on earth
why strictly did he emphasize
upon the need of deeds!

He never taught
that man was born
forever in a state impure
And so to pay for Adam's sin
his blood shall flow upon the cross
so men could enter paradise
upon his sacrifice- - -

His teachings are the opposite
of what we hear from Paul
Yet all believe in the ways of Paul
And not the word of Jesus Christ- -

Why Constantine was appeased
And truth was sacrificed
Why God was changed from one to three
Jesus from man to God
Why truth divine was compromised
At the council of Nicea - -

The strict command of God is to
invoke none save Him
all prayers all forms of worship
are directed to Him not Christ - - -

True invocation is one that which
In spirit and in truth
Is paid to none but God alone
Jesus affirmed the same- -

Why Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ
And all preceding them
Worship a Single God alone
Not three but only one - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If the apostles who lived, preached, ate, and drank with Jesus for so many years are all, were not able to see the 'truth' of Jesus' message as clearly as himself, and if Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh but is the author of the majority of our New Testament, is more truly guided than all of the apostles combined because of his claimed 'visions' even though he never quotes Jesus nor needs to learn from the apostles, but is, according to his own gospel, more truly guided than all of them despite all of this, then why did Jesus need to preach the law of Moses to mankind at all? Why did he himself observe it so strictly? According to Paul, Jesus' only use is as a body to be hung on the cross. Jesus (pbuh) felt it necessary to command his followers to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the law of Moses. He even felt it necessary to live his life in strict observance of this law as a supreme example for us. He never once explicitly mentioned an original sin, an atonement, a crucifixion, a redemption, or a nullification of the law of Moses. However, no sooner does Jesus depart this earth than Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced. He does not need to learn from the apostles, all he needs is his visions. That is indeed why he almost never quotes Jesus himself. He always resorts to his own philosophization rather than quoting Jesus. Why then did Jesus not simply come to earth right after Adam sinned, not say a single word, quickly anger some enemies of God, let them crucify him, and have it over with quickly? Even if Jesus decided to wait hundreds of thousands of years and only come 2000 years ago, then why preach a law that is going to be thrown out the window in only a couple of years? Why observe this law so devoutly himself? Why command everyone to strictly observe this law 'till heaven and earth pass'? Why threaten them that anyone who would forsake a single commandment would be called 'the least in the kingdom of heaven'? Is he not going to die for everyone's sins and then come back in exclusive visions to Paul and command him to nullify the law of Moses? Is he not going to come back in visions to Paul and command him to tell everyone that 'a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.'? Why not preach such a doctrine himself while he is still among his apostles instead of waiting to first mention it to Paul in a vision after his death?
_____________________________________________________________________

Quotes


Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.'

(Thomas Jefferson)

From a letter to W. Short published in The Great Thoughts by George Slides (Ballantine Books, New York,1985, p.208) .

_______________________________________________
William Ellery Channing has the following to say on atonement

' There is no passage in the bible in which we are told that the son of man is infinite and needs an infinite atonement.This doctrine teaches us that man although created by God, a frail erring and imperfect being is regarded by the creator as an infinite offender Channinng stated that God can forgive sin without this rigid expedient This doctrine which talks of God becomming a victim and a sacrifice for his own rebellious subjects is as irrational as it is unscriptual.Atonement should be made TO God and not BY God. if infinite atonement was necessary which only God can make so, then God must become a sufferer and must take upon himself our pain and woe, a thought which the mind cannot concieve. to escape this difficulty we are told that Christ suffered as man and not as God. But if man only suffered for a short and limited period then what was the necessity of infinite atonement'? - -

(Willian Ellery channing(1780-1842)

___________________________________________________
Albert Schweitzer

'Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.'

(The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p.171)

_____________________________________________
Jeremy Bentham
The renowned English philosopher, in his Not Paul But Jesus, published in 1823 declared thatIf Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul.
_______________________________________________
Ferdinand Christian Baur
The eminent theologian, in his Church History of the First Three Centuries, wrote:

'What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus....He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.'
_________________________________________________
Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)

'Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.'

(The Mythmaker, Barnes & Noble, p.16)
________________________________________________

From the book, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception'

by Michael Bajgent and Richard Leigh (Corgi Books, London,1991)

Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother, ' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was) , it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church, ' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Savior.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.'

'As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder.'

John Toland a famous historian states in his book 'The Nazarenes'
'Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites are by all historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians. or those who believed in Christ among the jews. With which his own people he lived. they having been the witness of his actions and who were all apostles. Considering this. I say how it was possible for them to be first of all others who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and decisions of Jesus(for they were made to be the firstheretics) and how come the Gentiles who believed in him after his death. by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things who whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews? The question of the origin of Jesus, his nature and relation to God was not raised among the first followers of Jesus. That Jesus was a man who was a prophet and one who had been given many gifts by God was accepted without question. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life on earth had led them to modify this certainity. According to Aristides, one of the earliest apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic than even that of the Jews. It was into this circle of sincere followers that Paul of Tarsus walked. The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9: 20: 'And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.' Paul claimed to have an access to Jesus which had been denied to the closest followers of Jesus while he was on earth. The teachings which Paul claim he had been given did not tally with what the apostles had heard from Jesus.It is understandable that they were therefore suspicious of his conversion and considered his revelation unreliable. Many probably suspected that he was no more than a spy posing as a follower of Jesus (The Jesus report by John Lehman pg123)
By zaheer