posted 07-10-1999 01:22 PM            

Greetings,

I have just finished reading a book called "For Christs sake" which is the first part of a 2 part book entitled "Blood on the cross".

The books exmaines the history of the Messiah movement and its migration from the middle east, through Greece/Rome into Europe, and then it's 'flowering' there into a mass instrument of human destruction. The book shows how the movement turned from worship of the one true Creator, to a semi-paganistic cult of power-mongers, and how those who clung to the true ideals of the message of the Messiah were constantly persecuted for it, by those authorities claiming to represent the message of the Messiah (peace be upon him).

The reason I first came to this forum, was because I was searching the web for information on movements that have their roots in the very early days after the Messiah's mission was completed. As you all well know, there has been a twisting of his message, and the 'official' church (roman catholics) do not carry his message. There existed, as I will show insha'Allah (if the Creator allows me), a clear division from early on, but it was not between those who used Greco-Roman names and those who used Hebrew names, it was a division between the "Official Trinitarian Roman Church", and those whom the former labelled as "heretics", the Unitarians.

From the very early days, after the completion of the Messiah's mission, there was a division amongst his followers. A man named Paul who had spent most of his life hunting down these "deviants" who were following a "false messiah" was now claiming to be recieving direct revelations from the Messiah himself, and was pushing for entry into their congregation. The man by whom he is alledged to have gained entry through, later became a bitter opponent of his, and they parted company, this of course was Barnabas.

When Paul parted company with Barnabas, he went preaching to the Greeks, something the other followers of the Messiah had not done. And he told them "If somoene comes to you teaching you another Messiah, and preaching another Gospel, do not accept it" (paraphrase). So who were these other people Paul was afraid might "cut in on his action"? History tends to suggest they were probably the Nazarenes (later Ebionites) who most likely possessed many different Gospels from the the ones Paul woud have been teaching, and most certainly a different Messiah. Most of the 100 or so Hebrew and Aramaic and other Gospels which existed from this early time period were destoryed and banned from being possessed, why? What did they contain that the "authorities", the Roman Trinitarian Church did not want the people to know?

After the Romans plundered Jerusalem and renamed her "Aelia Capitolina" they expelled all who practised the Hebrew customs (circumcision and the like) and forbade them from entering the city for another 600 years (until it was finally liberated by Khalifah Omar). The Nazarenes reportedly fled to Syria and Arabia, where they were named Ebionites, because they were so poor. And slowly they were either killed off or integrated with the mainstream movement of the Trinitarians which was spreading into the region. But their teachings (which come direct from the Messiah) were not lost, and they were passed on to other groups such as the Donatists of North Africa.

At the time when Constantine became emperor in 312 CE. he relaised it was impossible to eradicate the Messiah movement, Trinitarian or Unitarian, and so he decided instead to use it as a means of uniting the empire, rather than allwoing ti to divide it. But what he did not count on, was that the Messiah followers consisted of two camps, the Trinitarians, who were eager to assist him, and the Unitarian (Nazarenes) who were not. the Nazarenes, and their teachings by this time were firmly planted in the North African city of Carthage, which already had quite a history of rebellion against Rome. And it was from here that the struggle between those who worshipped the one true Creator alone having no partners and those who were willing to compomise this belief (ie. the Trinitarians). There was a priest in Carthage who was elected as Bishop in around 313, his name was donatus, and he was staunchly Unitarian, refusing the Roman demands to compromise his beliefs with their paganism as the Trinitarians had done. Dnatus had about 300 other bishops under him, and so he was considered quite a formidable opponent to those who wished to extinguish the light of the Messiah's teachings. The newly converted Romans, with their Trinitarian lackeys, were now calling council after council to try and bring the Unitarians into line with the "official church".

At this same time, there was a Libyan priest in Alexandria named Arius, who was also a Unitarian and who was teaching much the same doctrines as Donatus and also recieving much the same treatment from Rome. At this time, as history tells us, the Church became bitterly divided and the council of Nicea was called to put an end to the "unitarian heresy" once and for all. As a result of this council, it became an offence to own one of the 100 or so Gospels no approved by the Official Trinitarian Church, and around one and a half million Unitarinas were massacred in the years followng the council, simply because they refused to worship anyone but their Creator.

The Unitarians of North Africa and the Middle east, although not completely destoryed were drivne underground, but a new people had come to embrace the teachings of an Arian bishop named Eusebius, who had baptised and instructed one of their leaders named Ulfilas. These people were the Goths, and for the next 300 years, they would keep alive the flame of Unitarianism (belief in the the oneness of the Creator). For 300 years, the Goths, from Hungary, through France and Northern Italy, to Spain and finally in North Africa, where they would eventually meet up with the last of their Donatist/Arian Unitarian brothers to fight against the Trinitarians. But eventually they were forced back into Spain, and remained there a minority, until the Muslims marched into the Iberian peninsula, liberating them from the persecution of the Trinitarina establishment. There were Gothic Gospels, different from the canonical Gospels, but they along with so many others perished, never to be seen again, and even the Gothic language itself was largely destroyed.

It was only a matter of decades between the final defeat of the Gothic-Unitarian nation, and the rise of the Islamic nation. The Creator never left His peoples without guidance and the road to paradise (ie. unitarianism/monotheism). And in this time another grouop of Unitarians arose in the north, the Paulicians (note: not from Paul of Tarsus), who inhabited the region which is now roughly Armenia. These people were persecuted heavily by the Roman Trinitarians, classified as Heretics and destined for the stake. So it is little wonder, that when the Trinitarina crusaders marched on the Muslims, they found these Paulicians (what few hadn't yet embraced Islam) fighting side by side with their Muslim brethren in the monotheistic faith.

Under the Gothic and Muslim nations, these two peoples and religions treated eahcother with respect, and humane toleration. Both of these nations also extended the same hospitality to the Trinitarians (with some exceptions). But the Trinitarians, whenever they administered an area in which Unitarian Messianics or Muslims lived, would persecute and massacre them until none were left. There is no need ot contiue this on and relate the events which took place in Spain after the Trinitarians regained control, that horrendous time we know as the "inquisition".

And we can see around us that Trinitarianism managed to succeed over Unitarianism, and today there is little trace left of the Unitarian nations, except for the order for their death in the Roman Cannons.

To all those who died in the name of worshipping the one true Creator, may He bestow His infinite mercy upon them for their sacrifice, and their struggle in His path. Ameen

Peace,

[i]shlameal[ite].

posted 07-25-1999 04:26 AM            

Greetings JWB,

The Gospel of Barnabus from what I have read seems to be a Muslim or Christian trying to 'curry favour' with the opposition. It is largely nonsense, and is certianly not what I believe, although some of its concepts (which are undoubtedly plaguarised from Islamic texts) are part of Islam, and therefore would appear similar to mine.

That books calls Muhammad (peace be upon him) the Messiah, and denies that Yahushua (peace be upon him) is the Messiah, and this is in DIRECT contradiction to the Qur'aan which states the opposite, and the sayings of Muhammad (the ahadeeth) which also state the opposite.

Peace,

posted 07-25-1999 10:26 AM         

I was beginning to strongly suspect that the author was a Muslim; one chapter had the Messiah alluding to a prophet that would follow Him that would be the "Splendor of all the prophets", and Muhammad automatically came to mind when considering the other ideas which were in the Barnabas "gospel".
My suspicions about the authenticity of this gospel came quick, due to a reference to "Lucifer" in the supposed first sermon of the Messiah.

Anyway, I appreciate the imput, Shlameal.