Is Pope a Liar and Double Crosser?

 

By: Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد بن وحيد

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمدلله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء وسيدالمرسلين نبينا محمد صل ا لله عليه وعلى آله واصحابه وازواجه اجمعين - امابعد

All the praises and thanks be to Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.

 

Pope Benedict XVI who is notorious for putting his foot in his mouth by interfering in other beliefs and/or religions not to mention in other nations’ business {especially Islaam and Muslim countries}; has made some absurd statements as usual by calling Judas a liar and double crosser, quoting the book of “canards” i.e. the New Testament. The irony of Pope’s statement is that his words make him an absolute liar and double crosser. Let us examine the book of canards’ (New Testament).

 

We read the following in the Gospel according to John:

 

011:049

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

011:050

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

011:051

And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

011:052

And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

 

This statement is absolutely unacceptable as true because of the following absurdities:

 

1.                 Since this statement suggests that the high priest should necessarily be a prophet that is obviously not true.

2.                 If the statement of the high priest is considered as prophetic, it necessitates that the death of Jesus should be atonement only for the Jews (because they were called Children of God) and not the whole world. That is obviously against the established beliefs and claims of the Christians. And the part “not only for that nation” becomes an absurd statement.

3.                 According to the New Testament, this high priest who enjoys the status of the prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of “crucifixion” of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus accusing him (Jesus) to be a liar, a disbeliever, who is liable of being killed. The same high priest was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insulting of Jesus. We read in the Gospel according to the Matthew:

 

026:057

And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

 

We   also find the following in the same chapter of Matthew (26:63-68):

 

026:063

But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

026:064

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

026:065

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

026:066

What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

026:067

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

026:068

Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

 

We find more explicit mention in the Gospel according to John:

 

018:013

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

018:014

Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

 

Muslims ask following questions to the Pope and Christians at large!

 

If this statement that high priest made as a prophet is true, then why did he give his judgment to kill Jesus? He (high priest) declared Jesus blasphemous and he was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his court. Is it in anyway conceivable that a prophet should command people to kill his alleged god?

 

What Judas has to do for the crimes of Jesus, for which Jesus was convicted according to the above facts quoted from the New Testament?

 

When Jesus was smitten, why Jesus did not turn the other cheek? He instead of turning the other check asked that why he was smitten? This makes Jesus a hypocrite, right?

 

In a desperate attempt of damage control later the phrase “he prophesied” was replaced with the words “he gave counsel” in John chapter 18 as to give counsel is much different than making a prophecy as a prophet. That prompts more questions, such as:

 

Were the ghostwriters of gospels inspired or intoxicated?

Isn’t the Pope a liar and double crosser?

 

Suggested readings: Can the Pope be Reformed?

 

Sunday, May 28, 2006

 

Home Page