اﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﷲ ﺑﺴﻢ
We begin by praising our Lord and sending the best benedictions and peace upon those whom He raised
up and sent forth for the guidance of man. To proceed.
I am entitling this paper,
“Truth in Dialogue”
And it is intended to address the paper, “Final Response to Sheikh Halim”. As I mentioned in our last
conversation, it seems that we speak in two different languages. While this isn’t a problem, it sometimes
makes us feel like we’re talking past one another. I believe that both of us are speaking from a place of
absolute sincerity and kindness and I believe that both of us want to keep the conversation warm while
remaining reasonable. Perhaps most importantly, we are both seeking to remain both, intellectually honest
and true to our respective faiths.
The aim of these written correspondences began with a simple question regarding the usage of the term
“Gospel” and has lead us to discuss questions of history, language, and revelation. I want to honor these
conversation as with you and examine this latest response of yours in as thorough yet concise way as
possible – drawing from trusted scholarship. I hope to utilize Christian, Jewish, Muslim – and cross-
disciplinary – scholarship to examine the content of your paper. Because I want to do this quickly (I would
like to send this to you before our call in a few hours ), I will only draw from either my working memory1
or those sources I have readily available or am relatively familiar with. Ultimately, this is meant as a short
paper looking again at the topics of Scripture, atonement, and what faith in Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص might mean for
different people.
1.) The Integrity of Revelation
You note that the New Testament’s 400 000 textual variants are “mostly insignificant” but this isn’t more
of a devotional sentiment as many Christian evangelist scholars disagree. This can be easily established
by referring to the NET Bible – which is a wonderful resource to have in one’s library. What is more,
despite your seeming dislike for Bart Ehrman, he is a reputable scholar of Christian and Biblical history
who is very much trusted in his field. In his layman’s book , “Misquoting Jesus” (page 90), he points out,2
“It is a fact that we do not have the originals…Most changes are minor, but some are meaningful and
even theologically significant.”
But you asked a very significant question – “Do you know of any textual variants that changes the
meaning of the Christian doctrine?”. The answer is, yes and no. We can say ‘no’ because the Bible itself
was written as a proof text for doctrine. Thus, the evolving Bible was built around an evolving doctrine,
not necessarily the other way around. To say it more plainly: the Bible is designed to reinforce doctrine.
Despite that, the answer is “yes”. I am aware of several variants that have significant theological
implications. This is one of the values of the NET Bible, it points some of these out. I will try to limit
myself to just 5 examples so as to not overwhelm and to keep this work short.
This did not happen, unfortunately. Still, i will stay the course and do my utmost to keep it concise.1
I refer to it as a LAyman’s book as it is a kind of abridging a larger scholarly work, “The Orthodox2
Corruption of Scripture” – popularizing the work to make it more easily accessible.
1
The earliest copies of John 1:18 have (in their Greek manuscripts) “monogenēs Theos” [the only begotten
god] vs later manuscripts, “monogenēs huios” [the only begotten son]. This is pointed out by Bruce
Metzger who pointed out in his “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”, “The earliest
witnesses support ‘God,’ an evolution in Christological expression.” This reinforces the concession of
Christian textual experts that the portrait of Jesus changed through copying and canon selection.
In many variants of Matthew 24:36 the words, “nor the son” are removed because it demonstrates that
Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص did not share in God’s omniscience; hence, for many early theologians, this indicated he did not
share a single essence or nature with God.
Another important example that is seldom found in modern (corrected) translations is 1 John 5:7,8 – The
Comma Johanneum – where one can read in later manuscripts, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,
and these three are one”. This is very significant as it is the only real reference to the Trinity ever found in
a bible and it is a later addition…believed by most to be added after the concept of formulated in the
mid-2nd century or later, after the term “Trinity” was introduced by Tertullian in the third century.3
Another significant addition is one that is so often quoted today, “Let him who is without sin cast the first
stone”. This is part of the story of the woman caught committing adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11 and has
been used to inform Christians about Jesus’ stance on radical mercy vs. legal punishment…despite Jesus
ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص clearly teaching the need to uphold the Commandments.
The last example will be the one you mentioned – The longer ending of Mark. There is no doubt that this
is an addition. There is also no doubt that, in the context of the Bible, the addition doesn’t change the
Christian doctrine surrounding the resurrection. This, of course, is different when we understand that the
Gospel was not written to be part of a collection but as as stand alone work…and was circulated as such
for centuries. However, this addition does actually introduce new concepts such as snake-handling,
drinking poison and the miraculous signs relied upon by several Pentecostal churches and others.
These are not insignificant and it is a very limited selection which I believe also answers your question as
to where a later addition reinforced the teachings of the Pauline Church. I think that this should lead us to
agree that the New Testament is invaluable historically but not textually infallible (a historic fact agreed
upon even in Christian academia) even if we disagree as to whether or not the meanings are True or
infallible as a whole.
2.) Chain of Custody for the Qur’an.
You then asked, “Can you prove an unbroken chain of memory or custody of the Qur’anic to Muhammad
without variation?”. Invoking Qurʾānic textual history shifts categories as their transmission processes are
fundamentally dissimilar. The New Testament certainly deserves critical appraisal on its own historical
grounds.
Still, the answer is again, yes and no.
The clear answer is, “yes”. We have verifiable and unbroken – mass transmitted (mutawaatir) chains of
custody from our time to the Prophet Muhammad ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. Not one – thousands.
A discussion of this can be found in Raymond E. Brown’s , *The Epistles of John*.3
2
The harder answer is, “no, because…”. The Qur’an was revealed in seven Ahruf (dialectical modes) and
there are ten different Qira’aat (modes of recitation) that are recognized as canonical. The Ahruf were
linguistic variations which accommodated the different Arab dialects and the Qira’aat represent specific
rules regarding how the Qur’an can be recited.
In both cases, there are clear, unbroken, mass transmitted chains going back to the Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص – and have
been agreed upon by scholarly consensus (in writing) since the time of the Prophet’s companions
(disciples). You mentioned the finding of the Sana’a Manuscripts in your paper. These have actually been
used by Muslims to prove that these 7 Ahruf have been established from the very beginning as the sub-
layer ink (pre-Uthmanic) are all upon these seven Ahruf without any non-canonical additions that I am
aware of…thus supporting the Prophetic Narrations that established their existence.
Ultimately, these variants are all canonical and not “altered”. They are all preserved to this day with
sound, unbroken chains – and they are all still taught, memorized, studied and preserved. Far from the
“Uthman Manuscript” alienating them or seeking to get rid of them – it used the Quraishi script to
preserve all of these “variants” while protecting from any errors created by non-Arab scribes.
Even non-Muslim historians such as Fred M. Donner readily observe that, “Unlike the Christian textual
tradition, the Qur’an reached recensional stability within a generation.”4
Still, as I had mentioned, the question posed shifts categories. You raised a similar point in our last
conversation when you likened the Caliph Uthman overseeing a standardized script of the Qur’an to the
canonization of the Bible. It seemed as though the argument was, if one has a problem with one they
should have a problem with the other and, to the contrary, if they do not have a problem with one, they
should not have a problem with the other. This overlooks critical historical realities.
In early Christianity there was no central institutional control, no recognized scripture (other than the
Torah), no authoritative writings. The writings developed over many decades and even then, they were
copied privately for scattered congregations. This continued for nearly a century. Only then did some
books become more popular and hence, more circulated than others. This is not even looking at other
factors such as the scriptures used by other churches such as the gnostics or the theological disagreements
between many groups leading up to the adoption of the Nicene Creed in the 4th century…which then (and
only then) led to the canonization of the Bible to defend that Creed.
The Qur’an, by contrast, was a single text established, memorized and written (by individuals, privately) –
in full – in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. An “official” copy was then written within the first
18 months of the passing away of the Prophet Muhammad ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص under the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. It was
only around 25 years after the death of the Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص that there was recensional stabilization under the
third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. This stabilization was done in such a way that honored all of the Ahruf
and Qira’aat and never negated any of them.
These are two very different histories of two very different books…and I believe we have in the past and
continue to agree that each deserves investigation and research on their own merit.
“Muhammad and the Believers” by Fred Donner – page 71.4
3
3.) At Odds with Paul
This section of your paper was rather lengthy but I will try to suffice with a brief response. What is more,
it demands a very “powerful” response from me. A clear statement meant to summarize my position
might be – “There was no uniform gospel or doctrine taught by all of the apostles”. This statement is
supported by history but also by scripture as we can read in Galatians 2:11, “When Cephas came to
Antioch, I opposed him to his face.” Another example is in James 2:24 where he was countering claims
being taught by other apostles, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Such
verses reflect clear (and historically verified) tensions between the Church of Jerusalem, which upheld
Mosaic law, and Paul’s Gentile mission, which minimized it. Christian scholars seek to clarify this with
slogans such as “diversity, not deviation” (used by James D. G. Dunn) but it doesn’t minimize it.
I think it is critical to realize that, historically speaking, Pauline theology became dominant, not
necessarily because it was True or reflected the original teachings of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص or his disciples, but
because it proved flexible within Gentile culture.
I would argue that many of the earliest Christian communities, along with the Jews, retained the teachings
of the Torah. Christianity, under Paul, replaced covenant law with faith in a divine Son. Then, Islam later
restored the universal monotheism both claimed to revere but interpreted and practiced very differently.
I would like to end this section here but you mentioned something important in the paper and then
repeated it in our conversation. You stated, “The schisms between the Ebionites and church fathers is not
evidence that Jesus’ atoning death was not part of his gospel,” before continuing, “I think your points
about Paul being at odds with other followers of Jesus would have more force if you could show a
trustworthy apostolic or primary source that teaches something other than the gospel as the church has
known it for 2,000 years.”
This is a lot and deserves some unpacking before digging in. First, we should acknowledge that the
Ebionites pre-date the patristic era and hence, the Church Fathers…yet they were rejected by the Pauline
Church. I would argue they were the foundational Church Fathers as they stemmed from the Church of
Jerusalem under James…who was the appointed heir of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. Along with this, using conditioning
words such as “trustworthy apostolic or primary” seems to seek to limit what can be used and to leave a
door to dismiss anything one disagrees with. Finally, the claim that there is a single Gospel known by the
Church for 2,000 years negates the evolution and development of both the Christology and Creed of the
Church over the first three centuries.
Overlooking these points, I think that the request is not so difficult. And so, we will take some time and
address this in some detail so as to make the case very clear. There is already agreement between us that
early Christianity was plagued by doctrinal rupture. I think we can also agree (based on Galatians
2:11-14) that Paul’s reinterpretation of Jesus’ message created tension between those communities who
followed him and the Church of Jerusalem.
If we look only at the Bible itself we will see two very different teachings between the mission professed
by Paul and the teachings of the Church of Jerusalem. Let us take for example these few verses:
Paul taught,
Romans 3:24,25 – “Justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God
put forward as a sacrifice of atonement…”
Romans 3:28 – “One is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
Galatians 5:2 – “If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.”
4
While James taught,
James 2:8 – “If you really keep the royal law… you are doing well.”
James 2:17 – “Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
James 2:24 – “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Just in these few lines we see that Paul and James were not on the same page and there were clear and
undeniable theological and “legal” disagreements. This is just a small sample but, we can extend this
further and show that James and the Church of Jerusalem were Jewish-centric, law observant Christians
who viewed Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as a human Messiah and Salvation as being through faith, good works and
repentance. Paul, on the other hand, was gentile-friendly, free of the Law (perhaps even “anti-Law”)
Christians who saw Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as a Divine Savior through who’s atoning death salvation was attained.
This still is not necessarily addressing your query. You seem to want something clearly showing that other
early Christian groups with apostolic authority taught something other than the Pauline doctrine (gospel).
For that, we will have to look at “extra-Biblical” sources.
I would add that it would be easy enough to discuss the topic in light of gnostics as we find in the writings
of Irenaeus , Gnostic teachers’ (such as Valentinus and Basilides, etc.) versions of Jesus emphasized5
secret wisdom rather than atoning death. However, this opens up two unnecessary dilemmas. The first is
that the Gnostics were not a homogenous group but was a general label given to many groups who shared
similar (but not the same) beliefs. The second is that these groups (regardless of who they were, who they
learned from or what they actually believed) were all deemed heretical and “untrustworthy” very early on
(despite the wide spread of many of their books and teachings). From my side, I would rather avoid this
quagmire (or at least, to save some of it for the next section).
Instead, I want to carefully and conservatively, stick to 1st & 2nd century Christian writings that claimed
apostolic origins and were seen as “orthodox” by many until later being declared heresies by the Pauline
Church. One example of this would be the The Gospel of the Nazarenes which belonged to a Hebrew/
Aramaic gospel tradition and was closely associated with Matthew. While acknowledging that it is all but
lost and only fragments remain, it is also found in the quotes of Origen, Eusebius and St. Jerome. What
we do have of it indicates that these Christians, while deeply Jewish, believed that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was
reinforced and strengthened by the Holy Spirit but was not identical to God nor was he pre-existent. What
is more, there is no framing of Jesus’ death as a substitutionary atonement nor any other atonement
theology. What we know about it is that it reflected a non-Nicene, non-Trinitarian (Jewish origin),
Christian worldview.
Another example would be the The Gospel of the Ebionites which is attributed directly to Apostolic
tradition. Some have compared it to the synoptic Gospels, going so far as to say it was like a hybrid of
Mathew and Luke. Of course, we know that both Mathew and Luke are based on Mark and Luke is based
on Mathew as well. This was standard fare in the period. Again, recognizing it to be lost, we do have
fragments preserved in the vehement attacks by Epiphanius. The reason for the attacks was that,
according to Epiphanius, this Gospel rejected the Virgin birth, claimed that Jesus became the “Son of
God” at Baptism, taught that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص clearly spoke out against animal sacrifices (repentance sufficed),
and it rejected atonement through crucifixion. The problem here is that we only have these claims through
a hostile source and so, these very well could be straw man arguments. Scarce fragments survive outside
of Epiphanius’ writings but we still have lines such as, “I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you do not
cease from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you.” A line that clearly puts them outside of the
Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) in his “Against Heresies”.5
5
Pauline teachings. Still, what we can know is that those who circulated this gospel taught that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
was killed as a prophet, His death had moral or exemplary significance but was NOT substitutionary.
These two examples really should suffice but one may ask the question, why aren’t they readily available
to examine for ourselves? Textual Biblical historians offer three key reasons. The first is that they lost
institutional power as the Pauline Church spread through gentile networks, reaching many Roman cities
and utilizing the Greek language, the other (more Jewish) groups of Christians remained localized and
wrote in Aramaic. The second reason was their being labeled as heretics as early as the end of the third
century. Despite their surviving for sometime thereafter, their texts were no longer copied and the
preservation of those that were circulated stopped (both due to fear of persecution). The third reason is
that, especially after the rise of the Pauline Church in Rome, their faith and practices were mostly
community based, oral and liturgical. They simply did not need to rely heavily upon written theology
making such groups “archaeologically fragile”.
Despite this we still know, for example, that the Ebionites claimed continuity through James and the
Apostles of the Church of Jerusalem apostles, the Nazarenes claimed fidelity to a Matthew-style tradition
(remembering that there were different Churches that used a single gospel as their foundation…such as
the Johanine Tradition which will be addressed in the next section), and both groups rejected Paul as an
innovator. From their perspectives, they were the original Christians…despite the Pauline Church
deeming them as heretics.
I believe that if we trust Biblical scholarship and examine it in a cross-disciplinarian method we would be
forced to agree that the historical development reveals a clear trajectory from a diverse set of first-century
Jewish movements centered around Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, to a singular, universal orthodoxy defined by Pauline
theology, infused with Greek philosophical categories, and enforced by Roman imperial power.
Where we start to most likely disagree is at my position that this process systematically undermined and
ultimately sought to eradicate alternative forms, including the Torah-observant Church of Jerusalem led
by James, Ebionites, Nazarenes, and all other Jewish-Christian groups . Still, i think that this can be6
demonstrated in a nearly irrefutable way.
Starting from a non-contentious point, dispute Paul saying he was taught this theology, we should be able
to agree that Paul’s (undisputed) epistles are universally dated by scholars to the 50s CE, predating the7
earliest Gospel (Mark, c. 65-70 CE) by 15-30 years. These letters constitute Christianity’s earliest
systematic theology, articulating doctrines like justification by faith apart from Torah observance
(Galatians 2:15-21; Romans 3:21-28). We do not have any full writings from this era for reasons already
mentioned.
Paul went further in Galatians 2:7-9, explicitly delineating apostolic spheres – appointing Peter (Cephas)
for the circumcised (Jews) and himself for Gentiles. This bifurcation plants the seed of divergence. Paul’s
intended audience (Hellenistic cities like Corinth, Ephesus, and Philippi – all immersed in Koine Greek
and pagan philosophy) most likely played a part in influencing the Shaping of his expression. Those
expressions served to set a Gentile-oriented trajectory from its inception. None of this is controversial and
is attested to by conservative Christian scholars like F.F. Bruce.
By the second century, the so-called “proto-orthodox” (Pauline) Church – the Church which served as the
precursor to Nicene orthodoxy) mirrors Pauline soteriology: salvation through Christ’s atoning death, faith
While I repeatedly mention the Ebionites and Nazarenes together, I am not trying to conflate the two as6
though they were in agreement. They were two distinct groups amongst others and the only matters they shared
(to the best of my knowledge) are those mentioned in this paper.
Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon7
6
over works, and Christ’s Divinity. The Church is unified under these tenets by Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110
CE) And then defended by Irenaeus using Pauline proofs…privileging Paul’s writings over all others. Just
look at how there are 13 letters of Paul and only one writing by James. Again, this is a topic addressed by
Christian scholars such as Walter Bauer in his, “Orthodoxy and Heresy” and we can read the words of
N.T. Wright, “Paul’s letters… became the interpretative key for the whole Christian movement.” Again, I
believe this is a fair assessment we can agree upon.
The problem becomes ever greater when we see Paul’s thought prefiguring fuller Hellenization. Paul’s
synagogue training (Acts 22:3) included Hellenistic Jews like Philo and Philo was known for his blending
traditions. We see a teaching emerge which begins to mirror Philo’s intermediary divine reason—eternal,
agent of creation, incarnation, and the like. As these teachings spread we see a deepening of the
Hellenization through the permeation of Greco-Roman philosophy such that even Greek Philosophical
Vocabulary became common. Perhaps the most apparent is the use of the word, “Logos”.
By the second century, early apologists such as Justin Martyr, who went so far as to quote Plato,
consciously wedded Christianity to philosophy. apologists used Greek dialectic to defend faith,
embedding Platonic categories. Christian Scholars such as Robert Wilken teach that this wasn’t8
incidental; it was a program to legitimize Christianity intellectually.
By the time of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) the Christology would be unintelligible without Greek
ontology. It depended on words such as “homoousios”. Jaroslav Pelikan stated it clearly saying, “The
language of Greek philosophy became the language of Christian dogma.”
One may argue easily that I have gotten off track. You can even say about these last few paragraphs – “so
what? I mean, as long as it remained true to the teachings of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, who cares what language was used
to explain it?”. I think that would absolutely be a fair assessment. But it raises the question about what
happened to the “many thousands” of Torah-observant believers in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 21:20.
This was not a group that simply disappears in when the temple was destroyed. This Church persisted for
sometime Post-70 CE per the writings of Eusebius – but they lack any Pauline literary acceptance.
It is a historical reality that all “apocryphal” books were ordered burned by Gelasius I between 492 and
496 CE. These were the apocryphal writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes and
the Didache…so what of the books deemed heresies? Through this process, all textual records favor the
Pauline Church specifically and what remains outside of the Pauline Theology has reached us in only two
ways – either they were hidden away by those who utilized them (such as those in the Nag Hammadi
library) or through hostile sources such as the apologetics of the Pauline Church. This creates a redacted
history.
What we end up with is a near impossible way to prove the Hellenized-Pauline theology defies the gospel
of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص and his disciples and instead came to define Christianity as a whole. Through the
marginalization, suppression and eradication of rival texts and creeds anyone approaching Christianity
today MUST go through, and even depend upon, the Pauline Church as their source. Yet, despite this
historic reality, I believe that I have argued my case, through the Bible, through the gospels of the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, and the apologies of the early Pauline Church, that the Pauline theology was not
only NOT universally accepted by the apostolic Christians of Jerusalem but Paul himself demarcated that
there were to be two separate teachings – one for those who adhered to the laws (later demonized) and one
for gentiles. There existed Paul’s teachings of atonement and James’ teachings of faith, law and
repentance – at the same time. While those who followed Paul’s teachings deified Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, we see from
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that those who adhered to the teachings of James did not.
Robert Wilken in his book, “The Christians as the Romans Saw Them”.8
7
I am hopeful that this lengthy digression has offered a clear response to your positing, “The schisms
between the Ebionites and church fathers is not evidence that Jesus’ atoning death was not part of his
gospel.” While I must concede that it does NOT evidence that it was not part of the Gospel…based on
these facts I feel confident in saying that no one can say (strictly academically) that it was either. In fact, I
would argue that it boils solely down to a matter of faith. I’ll close here by stating once more, any person
holding any faith can still read the four canonized gospels as they are today and walk away with an
understanding that need not align with the Pauline Church.
—
I flirted with the idea of adding a footnote here but think it is better to address it as part of the main text.
You mentioned in 3.e., “Please do not ignore what i have just said in #3a-3d or gloss over it.” Despite the
length of this section already, I want to deal with these matters briefly:
A. Not Peter’s gospel but rather, his epistles. Interestingly, his gospel and other writings attributed to him
were not canonized. The epistles, however, are disputed…as you know…and, while I understand it is
believed that 1 Peter was written in the final year of Peter’s death, this still puts it at least a decade
after Paul’s writings. I am also aware that some attribute the polished writing to Silvanus (one of
Peter’s scribes) but that does not negate later additions paralleling the Pauline doctrine. This may be
because atonement beliefs spread rapidly amongst early Christians or because it was influenced by
Paul’s epistles. Either way, these post-date Jesus’ ministry and may reflect interpretive development
rather than preservation of teachings. This is specifically the very real problem I have with the books
of the bible – we cannot know! And if the criteria is: “Just because it was added later doesn’t mean it
isn’t true” because it agrees with the rest of the books…that is part of the problem!
B. I believe that I have dealt with this thoroughly above however, just in case I will add a short
comment here also. While 1 Cor 15:3-7 plains to preserve an early creed received by Paul, At best it
attests what some of the apostles believed about Jesus’ death, not what Jesus taught about salvation
during his ministry. Like the Ebionites’ interpretations, this represents post-resurrection theological
development, not verbatim apostolic instruction from Jesus himself…nor can we assume this was a
universally accepted belief amongst the disciples. And again, this is if we accept that Paul is seeking
to preserve something someone else had taught him.
C. The schisms in Islam were of a political nature far more than theological. In fact, the Sunni and
Shiites (and other groups) actually agree on doctrine with the exception of Shiite believing that
authority being inherited through the Prophetic lineage is part of their creed. Outside of that, there is
agreement on the six articles of faith and it is only in nuanced philosophical matters that differences
arise with regard to creed. The real differences are of political natures. Still, and I believe this is
important, the works of those seen as heterodoxies are preserved and the people who held them were
not scattered or killed (at least not due to religious reasons). In my library right now I have some of
the oldest Shiite commentaries on the Qur’an and their collections of Prophetic Narrations…and I
have visited their mosques and prayed with them. Even groups such as the Mu’tazilite are still seen as
“Muslim”…even though they are are viewed as “astray”. However, your end point that “the presence
of opponents does not mean a “winner” is corrupt” will be dealt with below.
D. We discussed this in the call and, if need be, I can go into far greater detail regarding the use of the
Book of Acts to bolster Paul over the actual disciples (direct students) of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص…often seemingly
denigrating the disciples to do so.
Now, at the end you added, “There were opponents with alternate theology but that does not make the
winners” corrupt”. I agree with you. I believe that the Pauline Church was full of sincere people. I simply
believe that, despite their sincerity, they do not represent the teachings of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. I believe that the true
followers of Christ were eliminated as mentioned in this section. Despite that, I like to believe that those
who adhered to the Pauline Doctrine were sincere and they firmly believed in it…and set about making
sense of conflicting teachings over time. This is why we see an evolutionary development…not because
they were nefariously plotting to corrupt faith but because they were trying to make it make sense.
8
It seems that you think that the corruption of beliefs necessitates ill intent. History tells us that nearly
every single branch of every philosophical, political or theological doctrine is started with the best and
most sincere of intentions. I would hope that we can agree that that does not make it correct.
Do I believe Paul had iniquitous intent? I honestly don’t know. Some days I believe that he could not
have gotten things so wrong unless it was intentional. It seems that he was a lying, ego-driven narcissist
who started out as an enemy of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص and ended as such. On other days, I think that maybe he could
have been sincere but, in trying to win as many hearts as possible, he packaged the message in a way he
knew would attract the pagans (a popular ploy used by later Christians, even into our own time)…but
once he died, the teachings were mixed with the very paganism he wished to save the people from. What I
can say is, whether he was sincere or wicked (and nothing is more wicked than intentionally calling
people to break the first commandments), the Pauline doctrine differs greatly from what I believe with
certainty to be the Universal Prophetic Message.
I would invite you to consider a time line where God sent the Prophets to Israel and they heeded for a
while and then transgressed and so, Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was sent to guide them away from sin and unto Salvation.
After his ascension into the heavens, the Pauline doctrine took root and spread by the sword for centuries.
God then sent the Seal of Prophethood ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as a mercy to all the world, calling all of mankind away from
the erroneous beliefs and back to the Universal Truth…that which was taught by every single prophet in
the history of mankind – God is One, be good to one another and, when you fall short, repent unto God for
indeed, in one’s return to Him is Salvation.
4.) John’s Gospel – its origin and intent
I believe that it is crucial to state my position clearly on this matter. The Gospel attributed to John is
known as the standout amongst the four canonical gospels. It contains what is termed, “Johannine
theology” not contained in the synoptic gospels. While I must concede that it is not “classically gnostic”,
as I mentioned in the last section, Gnosticism was NOT a homogenous whole. This gospel shares the
Hellenistic dualism of the gnostics – light/dark, knowledge/ignorance, above/below…as well as the
gnostic idea of “salvation by knowing the truth.” It also utilizes Platonic Philosophical language (and
meanings) such as the use of the term Logos.
We can argue in the other direction as well, mentioning (as you did) that the Gospel is very clear on
declaring that the Word was made flesh…but this does not preclude gnostic influence. We can safely say
(and perhaps agree) that while it was not purely gnostic (nor was it “purely” Jewish), it certainly espoused
gnostic themes and teachings not found in the synoptic gospels.
Elaine Pagels explains this matter saying, “Themes of light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance,
pervade John’s Gospel in ways that resemble the vocabulary of later gnostic writings. The Johannine
community likely produced both canonical and non-canonical traditions that later diverged.”9
Rudolf Bultmann’s commentary on John (from 1971) also identifies gnostic-styled dualism and
redemption knowledge (gnōsis) motifs throughout the Gospel. Both authors have expressed clearly that
later Gnostic sects adopted these motifs precisely because they resonated with Johannine thought and10
hence, this Gospel stands at a crossroads.
Christian Scholar Elaine Pagels wrote this in her book, “The Gnostic Gospels”.9
Elaine Pagels in her book, “The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis”.10
We would point out, although not quoted, similar things can be found in Raymond E. Brown’s, “The Gospel
According to John”.
9
These scholars (and many others) recognize that John both repels and reflects gnostic motifs. It at once
opposes dualistic disdain for matter and also heavily uses cosmic symbolism. I think that I (or anyone
else) could correctly argue that the Gospel attributed to John is a hybrid bringing together Jewish
mysticism (Philo), proto-gnostic language and Hellenist Philosophical terms – all cast within the light
Jewish monotheism and the shadow of the Pauline doctrine.
Now, to reiterate what I had said before, based on what I had been taught, this gospel was widely
circulated and used by many Gnostic groups and some of the anti-gnostic teachings therein have been said
to be later additions by “orthodoxy” in order to purify it of direct gnostic teachings. This was done
because it contains key teachings upon which the Creed of the Pauline Church (the Nicene Creed) depend
upon…thus making it invaluable to the Church. Can I personally prove that? No. can I find Christian
scholars who explicitly state this? No. However, this is what I have heard from (Bible) scholars who I
trust … and it is not misaligned from that which I have shared here.
And this is just addressing the matter of its relation to Gnosticism…not the many other unique teachings
found therein or the fantastical claims elevating the disciple John.
5.) The Question of Atonement
Your paper asserts that substitutionary atonement predates Paul. Neither Hebrew Scripture nor rabbinic
commentary agrees. This can be shown throughout the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings. Here I
realize that we can very easily get into Bible Ping-Pong but I will run the risk by offering just a few clear
examples –
Ezekiel 18:20 : “The soul that sins, it shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent … the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked upon him.”
(This flatly and plainly rejects vicarious guilt)
Hosea 14:2 : “Take with you words and return to the LORD.”
And commenting on Leviticus 1:9 we read from Ramban, “Man recognizes his guilt in the offering…and
attains atonement through repentance.”
Continuing with the verses from Leviticus, we read from Jacob Milgrom, “The sacrificial blood does not
transfer guilt but serves as a ritual detergent…removing impurity from God’s sanctuary.”11 12
Jacob Milgrom on Leviticus 1 – 16, from the Anchor Bible, p. 257.11
You said in 2.a. Of your conclusion that if i cannot concede that substitutionary atonement is a key part of12
ancient Jewish theology and NOT something created by Paul, my opinion loses credibility. I think that it is
crucial for me to point out here that I do not believe that it was created by Paul. It was a belief held across many
cultures and belief systems long before Paul was ever born. I do, however, believe that Paul developed this
theory in relation to the person of Jesus Christ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص.
As for substitutionary atonement being a key part of ancient Jewish theology, that would depend on which
rabbis you ask and which books you read (and even the readings of those books). I do know that there are Jews
to this day who sacrifice chickens and the like for the atonement of their sins…I even saw some last year
transferring their sins to $20 bills and “sacrificing” the money for atonement. This, however, does not negate that
the idea that a man was to come and die for this purpose was completely foreign to them.
I hope that this section has shown that.
10
(And, as you pointed out in your paper, this served “to purify sacred space”, not the people.)
And perhaps it is good to point out again, the “scapegoat” of Leviticus 16 is not executed but released –
carrying sin away, not suffering retribution.
In Judaism no vicarious death is needed; repentance (teshuvah) suffices for atonement and redemption.
According to unanimous opinion amongst Orthodox (and Ultra-Orthodox) Rabbis, Judaism cannot
accommodate the Christian reinterpretations of Scripture. They argue that, very much contrary to the
claim that their theology changed (a subject dealt with more fully in the next section), Christian
atonement theology evolved over time, and not uniformly amongst the different sects while Jews, on the
other hand, live daily redemption without mediator or substitution, upholding the same oneness declared
at Mount Sinai.
I would simply add here that Jesus’ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص own teachings stress mercy and repentance (Luke 15; Matt 9:13)
rather than sacrificial exchange…and again, this is what was found quoted from Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص in the Ebionite
Gospel.
Not that this adds weight to my argument but I will add that the Qur’an aligns with this older Judaic
teaching in ayat 6:164, “No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.” Commenting on this in his
“Ihya Uloom Ad-Deen”, Imam Al-Ghazali said, “God’s mercy precedes His wrath; whoever turns to Him
finds a gate always open.” This is a reflection of core Islamic beliefs which render Christian atonement
theology (while beautiful in emotional power) unnecessary to a God who is Absolutely Compassionate
and Perfectly Merciful.
Perhaps ending this section a good quote would be Psalms 51:16,17 – “You do not delight in sacrifice…
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.”
6.) Altered Theologies
Every Prophet, from Abraham to Muhammad ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, proclaimed uncompromising monotheism:
ׁשְמַע יִׂשְרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱֹלהֵינּו יְהוָה אֶחָד – “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” (Deut 6:4)
ْﺪـَ ﻮﻟـُ ﻢ ْ ﯾـَ ﻠِﺪ ْ وَﻟـَ ﻢ ْ ﯾـَ ﺼﱠﻤَﺪ ُ ﻟـﺪ ٌ ﷲ ﱠ ُ اﻟـَ ﻮ َ ﷲ ﱠ ُ أَﺣـُ ﻞ ْ ھـُ ﻗ – “Say: He is God, the One, Self-Sufficient, Eternal, He begets not nor was
HE begotten” (112:1-3)
Documented records suggests the core tenets of Rabbinic Judaism (Divine unity, repentance, covenantal
law, etc.) all remain consistent with pre-Christian precedents. I believe that Moshe Halbertal summarizes
this well saying, “Rabbinic Judaism is remarkably conservative: it systematized already existing practices
rather than inventing new dogmas.”13
To the contrary, Christian theology introduced novel ideas (incarnation, trinity, original sin, etc.) that have
no precedent in Second-Temple Jewish sources. Thus, continuity lies primarily on the Jewish, not Pauline,
side.
Moshe Halbertal in his work, “People of the Book” – on page 2913
11
I think it is critical to state clearly that no textual variant or philosophical explanation can convert the
Infinite into flesh without contradiction and this is why there was such a long historical evolution of
Christology leading up to the 4th century Councils under the Roman Empire.
I don’t think anyone can really deny that the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص saw him as
“Mashiach”, not “Elohim”. They honored Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as a Prophet, the Word of God, a Spirit from Him
And the Messiah … all of which is fully compatible with monotheism. To call him God incarnate is not.
In Islam we have this as part of the concept of our monotheism, “He (God) is with everything without
mingling, apart from everything without separation.” this reflects the transcendence of God as well as14
His intimate presence and active involvement.
I’ll close this section by saying, I believe that the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص is mirrored
in the teachings of the Qur’an, “The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was a Messenger of God,
His word conveyed to Mary, and a spirit from Him.” (4:171) – and God knows best.
7.) The Messiah’s Mission
You mentioned that, “In Jewish theology there are discussions of two messiahs or two titles, one from
David and one from Joseph”. My response to this will begin by saying that in some writings there are
three – one who is a king, one who is a warrior and one who is a priest. The two you mentioned are the
Kingly Messiah (from David’s line) and the Warrior Messiah (from Joseph’s line and will die in Battle ).15
The Priestly Messiah is believed to stem from the line of Levi. Each of these figures are supposed to serve
their own role, being separate individuals of different lineages.
The Priest is supposed to restore pure temple worship and lead spiritually – and sometimes militarily due
to need – and most closely fits the figure of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص in Christian theology as well as history.
According to Jewish teachings, the true Messiah is a mortal Davidic king who perfects world justice. He
must fulfill tangible prophecies: ingathering of the Jews, universal peace, global recognition of God (as
per Isa 2:2–4) – and, critically, he must succeed in his lifetime. If a person claiming to be the Messiah16
dies before accomplishing this, he cannot be considered the Mashiach according to Judaism. This is
specifically why you find Jews rejecting Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص.
However, in Jewish law, Islamic tradition, and the earliest Church (The Church of Jerusalem) there is
agreement: the Messiah is a servant of God who restores righteousness, not a deity who redeems through
death. None of these three traditions imagined divine martyrdom or the waiting for a savior’s blood.
Rather, the expectation from the Messiah was for God’s mercy through human justice. This teaching is
still found in Judaism and Islam and is clearly established in Prophetic narrations such as the prophet’s
peace having said, “Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص the son of Mary will descend… He will break the cross, kill the swine, and
abolish tribute; and he will rule with justice.”
This is a quote from Imam Al-Janayd.14
Talmud Sanhedrin 98b15
We can also read in Rambam, Hilchot Melakhim 11:4 – “The King Messiah will arise and restore the16
kingdom of David, rebuild the Temple, and gather the dispersed of Israel.” This is a fundamental belief in
Judaism with regards to the Messiah.
12
I think this conflation of “Messiah” with “God” rather than “a servant of God” is a huge issue in Christian
theology. The very recognition of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as the Messiah is a negation of his being God. A point that
leaves a long under-discussed gap.
8.) Gentle Feedback
Across all Revelations, salvation means restoration, not replacing.
In Judaism we can read: “You shall return to the Lord your God.” (Deut 30:2)
In Christianity we can read: “There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:7)
In Islam we can read: “Say, O My servants who have wronged themselves, despair not of God’s mercy.”
(Q 39:53)
Three different beliefs. Three different books. Three different languages.
But a single message – a return to God through repentance.
I would thus further propose that, if God is eternal, self-sufficient, and incomparable, then logical
reasoning reflects and confirms revelation. I would mention that a fundamental tenet of Islamic
monotheism is that “God is Independent of all [and all] creation.” ( 3:97) . To say He “required” sacrifice
contradicts both intellect and Scripture.
9.) Conclusion – A Shared Horizon
I have enjoyed our conversations over this last year and, while I will miss them, I do appreciate the
change to written correspondence. One thing that has been echoed by many involved in interfaith
exchanges is, “Authentic dialogue begins where ego ends’. There is always a defensiveness when one
speaks about their own religion. It is not always a defense of the religion as much as a defense of one’s
own identity. One of the deep beauties of our interactions is that we have both been Truth seekers whose
journeys have led us from the faiths upon which we were born to those beliefs we perceive as the Truth,
crisscrossing along our way. I see this not for the novelty which those outside of our conversation might
find in it but as an indication that both of us are willing to sacrifice identity for Truth. I feel that that is not
only rare but truly beautiful as it is an indication of sincerity.
I mention this reflection because it is when we speak about differences in a sincere way, being true to
ourselves and respectful of one another, understanding occurs…even as differences become highlighted.
For myself, I always prefer to focus conversations on the backdrop of the the Qur’an’s timeless invitation:
“Come to a word common between us – that we shall worship none but God alone.” (Q 3:64) I believe
that this verse allows for a meeting place of hearts from which we can build while also acknowledging
that even this simple step is difficult to arrive at. In the context of our conversations, perhaps an even
simpler step would be to agree that to love Jesus is to harbor a love for Truth.
Historical honesty should allow agreement on other points as well: scriptural texts evolved over time
(even if only typographically); God is absolutely One; and His mercy asks repentance from mankind. We
may not agree on what these things may mean below the surface of the statements but, I think we still
agree at least on the statements alone.
13
I will close praying that the One Who sent Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, the One He prayed to, guide both you and me to His
Truth and the reality of Salvation…ameen.
____
POST-SCRIPT :
After having gone through your paper and responding as well as I can, I believe that what we can agree
on from it is a gratitude for our dialogue and the mutual respect reflected.
History shows that the early Christian movement was diverse and only later (fourth century) reached
doctrinal consensus. After this, The New Testament was canonized and, though textually varied,
preserves the central narrative and early conviction of that specific doctrinal consensus – that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
lived, was crucified, and was believed to have risen. In the New Testament, Jewish imagery of sacrifice is
used to shape how Christians understand his death. And, within the NT, the Gospel attributed to John,
though mystical, does not represent a purely gnostic view.
We can also agree that all great traditions experience division without that fact alone proving or
disproving their truth or whether the truth is on the side of the persecuted or those persecuting them.
What remains after this is historically defensible with both of our sides being humanly credible.
The issue is, we are both seeking that which is beyond human credibility – the Divine Truth.
May we both be guided to it…ameen.
This work was completed, by God’s permission, on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, corresponding with
Sha’ban 24, 1447. We praise Him and ask of him His acceptance. May He make this paper a source of
benefit in this life and the Next…ameen.
Wm. Halim Breiannis
Baltimore, MD
14