The question of whether Jesus (peace be upon him) is God has engaged theologians, scholars, and sincere seekers across centuries — yet the most compelling answers emerge not from external critique alone, but from the internal testimony of Christian scripture itself. When the texts used to argue for the divinity of the Messiah are scrutinised honestly, a pattern becomes undeniable: key passages supporting this doctrine have been declared fabricated by Christian scholars themselves, the term “son of God” is applied throughout the Bible to figures no one considers divine, and Jesus himself — in his own recorded words — addresses God as “my God.” From the Islamic tradition, grounded in the pure monotheism of Tawheed, this convergence of evidence confirms what the Quran and the authentic Prophetic message have always affirmed: Allah (SWT) alone is God, and Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him) was His noble servant and Messenger, sent with guidance, not deity.
Bible Scholars Themselves Removed the Primary Proof Texts for the Trinity
“This verse — the so-called Trinitarian proof text — was thrown out as a fabrication. All modern translations of the Bible no longer contain it. Not discarded by Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu scholars — but by 32 scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating Christian denominations. They found it was a fabrication, and as a fabrication, they threw it out.”
Among the most significant and rarely acknowledged facts in this theological debate is that the very textual foundations of Trinitarian doctrine have been removed from modern Bibles by Christian scholarship itself. The verse in 1 John 5:7 — the only passage in the New Testament approaching an explicit Trinity statement — was excised from the Revised Standard Version after being identified as a later interpolation. Even more striking, the two Ascension passages in the Gospels — Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51 — the only two places in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven — were similarly declared fabrications and removed from the same critical revision. The Gospel of John itself, which bears the heaviest weight of Trinitarian theology and is the primary source for “I and the Father are one” type verses, has faced serious doubts about its authorship since the second century CE — with the Encyclopaedia Britannica stating plainly that its author “was not John for certain,” and Professor Stadlin noting it was composed by a student of the Alexandrian school. Notably, Christian sources themselves record that the Gospel of John was written specifically to combat sects that denied Jesus’s divinity — raising profound questions about its theological objectivity. These are not accusations from outside the faith; they are admissions from within it.
- The Trinitarian proof text (1 John 5:7–8) was removed from all modern Bible translations — identified as a fabrication by 32 senior Christian scholars backed by 50 denominations
- Both Gospel Ascension passages (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51) were also declared fabrications in the Revised Standard Version
- The Gospel of John — primary source for divinity claims — faced authorship doubts as far back as the second century CE
- The Encyclopaedia Britannica stated its author “was not John for certain”
- The Gospel of John was written specifically to prove divinity after earlier Gospels failed to establish it — undermining its status as independent witness
- Islamic scholarship holds that the original Gospel brought by Jesus (peace be upon him) was pure revelation — what exists today is a human compilation, not divine scripture
When the Bible Calls Adam, Israel, and Solomon “Son of God” — The Phrase Cannot Mean What Christians Claim
Even granting the remaining Gospel texts at face value, the phrase “son of God” — the cornerstone of Trinitarian Christology — does not carry the exclusive, literal, divine meaning that mainstream Christianity assigns to it. The same Bible that calls Jesus the son of God also describes Adam as “the son of God” in Luke 3:38, declares Israel as God’s “firstborn son” in Exodus 4:22, describes Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28:6 with the words “I have chosen him to be my son,” and assures all peacemakers in Matthew 5:9 that they “will be called sons of God.” John 1:12 offers all believers “the power to become the sons of God” — extending the very title to anyone who receives faith. In the Semitic linguistic and spiritual tradition of the Biblical world, “son of God” was an honorific for the righteous, the chosen, and the beloved servants of Allah — not a biological or ontological claim about divine nature. Were Adam, Israel, and Solomon also gods to be worshipped? The question answers itself, and the answer dismantles the entire argument.
- Adam is called “the son of God” — Luke 3:38
- Israel is called God’s “firstborn son” — Exodus 4:22
- Solomon is told “I have chosen him to be my son” — 1 Chronicles 28:6
- Peacemakers are promised they “will be called sons of God” — Matthew 5:9
- All believers are given “power to become the sons of God” — John 1:12
- Jesus himself calls God “my God” in John 20:17 — the clearest possible evidence that he is a worshipper of God, not God Himself
- “Son of God” in Biblical language is a metaphor for the righteous servant — it implies no uniqueness, divinity, or biological relationship
“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” — Gospel of John 20:17
Islam’s contribution to this centuries-long discussion is not merely polemical — it is a call to reflect on the nature of Allah (SWT) with the clarity and reverence He deserves. Among the 99 beautiful names and attributes of God Almighty revealed in the Quran, the word “father” (Ab in Arabic) is deliberately and purposefully absent. In its place, the Quran uses “Rabb” — Lord, Cherisher, Sustainer, Evolver — a term that captures Allah’s relationship to all creation in a way that preserves His absolute transcendence and infinite majesty, wholly free from the anthropomorphic associations the word “father” inevitably carries. The Islamic position is not merely theological preference; it is a safeguard against a dangerous distortion: when God is portrayed as a father who “begets” a son — which is by nature a physical, animal act — the concept of the Divine is dragged into the realm of the creaturely. And a theology that holds that God’s forgiveness requires the killing of an innocent, even His own son, in place of the actual wrongdoer raises profound questions about divine justice and omnipotence that no sincere person of faith can ignore. The Quran invites every sincere seeker — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — to return to the pure monotheism taught by every Prophet from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all): that God is One, that He does not beget and was not begotten, that there is none comparable to Him, and that in this truth — Laa ilaaha ill-Allah — lies the foundation of all authentic spirituality, moral clarity, and lasting peace.
