"The Great Debate or Revealing the Truth" 345 Proofs 196 arguments and 149 Additions

able concept. In answer to this contention we may remind them that

the millions of Roman Catholics who still hold the belief of

transub-

stantiation are equally sensible and are greater in number than the

Protestants. They still fimlly believe in the actual transformation

of

the bread into the body of Christ. This invalidates the Protestant

con-

tention. Now we will show that the sacrament of the Eucharist, as

believed by the Catholics, is totally irrational and something that

is

totally unacceptable to human reason.

First ARGUMENT
The Roman Catholic Church claims that the wine and bread physi-

cally change into the blood and body of Christ and become, in a

real

sense, Christ himself. This bread, when transformed into Christ,

must,

therefore, be physically transformed into human flesh. It is clear,

however, that the bread retains all its properties and anyone

seeing

and touching it finds nothing but bread, and if this bread is left

for

some time it decays and decomposes like any other bread. It will

not

show any of the changes that occur when the human body decom-

poses.
Second ARGUMENT

The presence of Christ, with his divine character, at thousands of

places in one and the same time may be possible in Christian

thought

but it is not compatible with his human character. Because being

fully

human he was like other human beings, feeling hunger, eating,

drink-

ing, and sleeping as all other men do. Being human he was even

afraid of the Jews and fled from them. It is, therefore, logically

impossible that Christ possessing a single human form could be pre-

sent physically at innumerable places at the same time.
Third ARGUMENT
If we assume that the thousands of priests are capable of instant

consecration, making the bread offered by them instantly tum into

the

body of the same Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary at their

recitation, it leaves us with two possibilities: either every one

of these

Christs is exactly and precisely the same real Christ born of the

Virgin

Mary, or that every one of them is other than the real Christ.
Fourth ARGUMENT
Now when the bread has tumed into the body of Christ in the

hands of the priest, he breaks it into many small pieces. This

again

presents two possibilities, either Christ is also divided into an

equal

number of small pieces or each piece again turns into a complete

and

perfect Christ. According to the fommer the eater of one piece

would

not be considered as having eaten the whole of Christ; and

according
1. The Christians believe that wherever in the world the ceremony

of Euchanst is

performed, Christ physically makes himself present at that place.
to the latter, you will have to believe in the presence of an army

of

Christs.

Fifth ARGUMENT
The event of the Lord's supper that took place a little before the

'crucifixion' served the purpose of the sacrifice that was later

sup-

posed to have been achieved by putting Jesus on the cross and

cruci-

fying him. It was quite unnecessary that he should be crucified by

the

Jews after having already sacrificed himself. Because, according to

Christian thought, the only purpose of Christ coming in the world

was

to sacrifice himself for the redemption of the world. He had not

come

to suffer again and again for this purpose, as is understood from

the

last passage of Hebrews chapter 9.
Sixth ARGUMENT
If the Christian claim is taken as correct, it would make the

Christians more cruel to Christ than the Jews as they persecuted

Christ only once and left him2 while the Christians day by day

perse-

cute Christ, slay him and eat and drink his flesh and blood. If the

Jews

can be condemned and cursed for crucifying Christ once what should

be the fate of those who kill and slay Christ a number of times

every

day and do not leave him alone after this but eat his flesh and

drink

his blood? What can be said of those who do not hesitate to eat

their

god? If their god cannot save himself from their clutches who on

earth

will be safe from them?

Seventh ARGUMENT
Luke 22:19 contains the following statement of Christ with regard
l. "So Chnst was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto

them that look

for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto

salvation."

2. The Christian Churc4 after the pact of friendship with the Jews

in 1964, clear-

ly declared that the Jews had nothing to do with the killing of

Christ. This declaration

stands in clear contradiction with what the Bible says and shows

the scant respect

they give to the Bible.
to the institution of Eucharist:
This do in remembrance of me.
If this supper was in itself a sacrifice, then it cannot have been

a

memorial or a remembrance, as nothing can be a remembrance of

itself.
People who accept such superstitions as a bread turning into Christ

are all the more liable to become a prey to greater superstitions

in

divine matters such as the concept of God and other matters related

to

reason. We contend that if all these sensible followers can agree

on a

belief which is absolutely rejected by logic and commonsense,

either

in blind pursuance of their ancestors or for some other reason, it

should not be come as a surprise to us that the Protestants and

Catho-

lics have together agreed on the trinity which is more absurd and

more in contradiction with human reason.

There are a large number of people, a greater number, in fact, than

the Catholics, who are called heretics because they have abandoned

the Christian faith simply because they found too many institutions

and beliefs of the Christian faith unacceptable to human reason.

They

refused to accept what is unacceptable. Their books are full of

argu-

ments to support their thought. Moreover, there is another sect

called

Unitarians who also have rejected the institution of the Eucharist.

The

Jews and the Muslims also refute and reject this mythological and

even absurd teaching.
Sixth Point: Ambiguity in the Statements of Christ
There are innumerable examples of ambiguity found in the state-

ments of Christ. So much so that his disciples and close friends

could

not understand his message until Jesus himself had elucidated it.

The

statements explained by Jesus have definitely been understood but

many other statements that were not explained by him still remain

obscure and ambiguous except some of them that were understood

with great effort after a long time. There are many examples of

this in

the New Testament of which we will mention only a few.
First Example
Chapter 2 of the Gospel of John, describing the event of some

Jews who asked Christ for some signs, reports the following reply

of

Jesus to the Jews:

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in

building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake

of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from

the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto

them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which

Jesus had said.'
In this example even the disciples of Jesus could not understand

the significance of the above statement until the resurrection of

Christ

let alone it being understood by the Jews.

Second Example
Jesus said to Nicodemus 2
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom

of God.3
Nicodemus not understanding Jesus, answered:

How can a man be bom when he is old? Can he enter the

second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus tried to make him understand the second time, but he still

did

not understand. then Jesus said to him:
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these

things?l
Third Example

Christ, addressing the Jews, said:
I am that bread of life.... This is the bread which cometh

down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die...2

and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for

the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among them-

selves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, ... Except ye eat the flesh of the

Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in-

deed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,

dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent

me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he

shall live by me....
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this,

said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?

From that time many of his disciples went back, and

waLed no more with him.

This time the Jews did not understand Jesus and even his disciples

found it to be hard and complicated with the result that many of

his

disciples abandoned him.

Fourth Example
The Gospel of John 8:21-22 has:
Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye

shall seek me, and shau die in your sins: Whither I go, ye

cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself?

because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

Fifth Example
John 8:51-52 says:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he

shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we

know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the

prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall

never taste of death.
Here, too, the Jews could not understand the statement of Jesus,

rather they accused him of being possessed by the devil.

Sixth Example
We read in John 1 1 14:
And after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus'

sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then

said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit

Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken

of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly,

Lazarus is dead.

Here we see that the disciples did not understand him until he

explained what he had meant.

Seventh Example
Matthew 16:6-12 contains the following statement:
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the

leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they rea-

soned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken

no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O

ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye

have brought no bread?... How is it that ye do understand that

I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware

of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then

understood they how that he bade them not beware of the

leaven of the bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of

the Sadducees.
Similarly here the disciples could not understand what Jesus said

to them until he explained it to them.

Eighth Example
Under the description of the maid that was raised from the dead

we find this statement in Luke 8:52-53:

And all wept and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she

is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn,

knowing that she was dead.
Jesus, in this example, was laughed at, as no one could understand

what he meant.

Ninth Example
We find the following address of Jesus to his disciples in Luke

9:44-45:
Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of

man shall be delivered into the hands of men, But they under-

stood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they per-

ceived it not: and they feared to ask of that saying.
The disciples again could not understand Jesus in the above exam-

ple.
Tenth Example

The following statement appears in Luke 18:31-34:
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them,

Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written

by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accom-

plished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall

be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they

shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he

shall rise again. And they understood none of these things:

and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the

things which were spoken.
On this occasion the disciples did not understand this saying even

though it was the second time that they had been told about it.

Apparently the above statement had no ambiguity in it. Perhaps the

reason for their not understanding this saying was that they had

learnt

from the Jews that Christ would be a great king. Now at the appear-

ance of Christ when they embraced his faith, they were looking for-

ward to the time when they would sit on the royal throne with

Christ.

They had firm belief in this because Christ himself had promised

them that they would sit on twelve thrones, and each of them would

rule over the people of one tribe of the Israelites. They thought

the

kingdom promised by him was the kingdom of this world, as indicat-

ed by the literal sense of Christ's words. Now the a'oove saying

was

totally against their expectations and belief. We are going to

show, in

the next pages, that the disciples of Jesus truly had such

expectations.

Everlasting Doubt Concerning Some Precepts
Due to the ambiguity of some of Christ's statements his disciples

were left in everlasting uncertainty with regard to some matters

relat-

ed to faith and they were unable to remove this doubt as long as

they

lived. For instance, they believed that John the Baptist would not

die

until the Day of Resurrection and they firmly believed that the Day

of

Resurrection would come in their lifetime. We have discussed these

two matters in detail earlier in the book.
It is established that the actual words of Christ are not found in

any

of the Gospels. The Gospels only contain a translation of what the

narrators or reporters thought Christ had said. We have produced

undeniable evidence to prove that there is no trace of the

existence of

the original Evangel. All that we have is a translation and that,

too, is

without any sign or indication of the translator. There is no

convinc-

ing proof, either, that other books which are ascribed to various

authors really were written by these authors. We have already shown

that these books have undergone innumerable alterations, and have

been badly distorted. We have also proved that believing Christians

have distorted these texts for religious purposes, that is, either

for sup-

porting some commonly believed precept or for removing certain

objections from it.

We have also shown in earlier pages that any texts conceniing the

precept of trinity have also been distorted and changed. The

following

lines were added to the text of chapter 5 of the First Epistle of

John:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost.l
Similarly some words were added to the text of chapter 1 of

Matthew while a complete verse was omitted from chapter 22 of

Luke.
The Seventh Point: Impossibility of the Possibles
Sometimes human reason is not able to have access to the full sig-

nificance of certain things but at the same time it does not

discard

them as an impossibilities. Their existence is accepted as being

possi-

ble. All such things, therefore, are considered to lie in the

category of

the possible.

Similarly sometimes human reason, on the basis of some rational

ARGUMENT or merely on apparent evidence, decides that something is

impossible. The existence of all such things are categorised as

impos-

sibilities. Obviously each of them is explicitly different from the

other. Similarly two things contradictory to each other cannot

exist

together. Likewise it is not logically possible for one thing to be

devoid of both the qualities of possibility and impossibility. For

example, one cannot be human and non-human at the same time. For

instance if Zayd is not non-human he must be human, or if a stone

is

not human it must be non-human. Anything claimed against these

logical rules would be considered absurd and impossible by every

sensible person throughout the world. In the same way singularity

and

plurality cannot be found in one thing at the same time. Similarly

two

opposites cannot exist together at the same time. For instance,

light

and darkness, blackness and whiteness, wannth and coldness, wetness

and dryness, visibility and invisibility, motion and immobility,

cannot

exist together. This is so obvious that human reason would

instantly

decide against it.
The Eighth Point: What To Do With Counteracting ARGUMENTs
There are situations when we are faced with counteracting argu-

ments between the two ideas. In such cases if we are unable to

prefer

one over the other, both have to be discarded, otherwise some con-

vincing explanation must be found for both. However it is essential

that this explanation must not be a rational impossibility. For

example

the verse speaking of God's physical form and features contradict

or

counteract the verses that speak of God as being free from physical

shape and form. It is therefore essential to interpret these verses

so as

to remove the apparent contradiction from them. At the same time it

is essential that this interpretation should not define God as

being

physical and non-physical at the same time, because such an

interpre-

tation would be a rational impossibility and unacceptable to human

reason and would not remove the contradiction from the statements.
The Ninth Point: Three Cannot Be One
Number, in itself, is not self-existent. It always exists

causatively.

Philosophically speaking it is accidental. Every number therefore

is

an entity different from others. One is different from two, and

three

etc. Anything that is more than one, cannot be considered to be

one.

Any claim therefore, to the presence of singularity and plurality

in

one thing at the same time has to be rejected by human reason as

being absurd and irrational.
The Tenth Point: Real Unity and Trinity Together
From our view point there would nothing objectionable if the

Christians did not claim that the trinity and unity of God was real

and

factual, and that three were actually one and one actually three.

If they

claimed that unity existed in reality while the trinity existed

only figu-

ratively, in that case we would agree with them and have no con-

tention with them. But they claim their gods to be three and to be

one

at the same time as is more than evident from the books of

Protestant

scholars. The author of Meezan al Haqq said in his book Hall-al-

lshkal:
The Christians believe in trinity and unity in the real

sense of the words.
The Eleventh Point: Different Interpretations of Trinity
The great Muslim scholar Maqrizi,l describing contemporary

Christians said in his book Al-Khltat:

The Christians are divided into many sects: Melchites,2
Nestorians,3 Jacobites,4 the Bodhanians5 and the Maronites

who lived near Harran.

He further said:
The Melchites, Nestorians and Jacobites all believe that

God is three persons and that the three persons are one, that is

in their pre-existent essence. This means that the Father, the

Son and the Holy Ghost combined together are one God.

Again he said:
They claim that the Son was united with a bom son, the

uniter and the united together became Christ, and this Christ

is the Lord and God of the people. Now there is disagreement

among them regarding the nature of this Unity. Some Chris-

tians say that the essence of divinity and the essence of

humanity were united together, and this unity did not cancel

the essence of the other. Christ is both, the Lord God and the

son of Mary who remained in her womb and was given birth

by her and who was crucified.
Some other Christians claim that after being united they became

two separate essences, one human and the other divine, and his

death

and crucifixion are related to his human aspect and not to his

divine

person. Similarly his birth is related to his former person. They

say

that Christ as a whole is worthy of worship and Lord God.

Christians think that the human and divine essences were united but

that the divine essence is inseparable, while others claim that the

hypostasis of the son was incamated into the body and was united

with it. Others think that this unity is only an appearance like

writing

on wax or a reflection in a mirror. The Melchites say that God is

the

name of three meanings. They believe in one in three and three in

one. The Jacobites claim that God was One and self-existent, non

physical, then later he became physical and human. The Maronites,

on the other hand, hold that God is One. Christ is not his physical

son

but out of his kindness, love and grace he called him his Son, as

Abraham was called the friend of God. In short they have great

differ-

ences in this matter.

The above differences with regard to the interpretation of that

trin-

ity among Christians are so great and serious and so contradictory

to

each other that no definite conclusion can be arrived at. The

Protestants, realising this absurdity of the concept of union,

rebelled