The true God whom Christians are avoiding.

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1John 5:20]

 

Christians are putting their own twist on the above verse assuming its states Jesus is the true God. The problem is, the gospel according to john has already clarified who the true God is through the lips of Jesus.

 

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [John 17:3]

 

Note that the phrase “only true God” refers to the one who is God, and not to Jesus, as He clearly distances Himself from being identified as that one true God.

 

That is one way of showing Jesus is not the only true God. The other way is, using basic rules of English grammar.

 

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20]

 

In this context, both “him” and “He” represent different grammatical cases accusative and nominative, respectively. “Him” is the accusative pronoun, functioning as the direct object of the verb, while “He” is in the nominative case, identifying the subject of the clause. Therefore, the phrase “the only true God” appears in the genitive case, indicating possession or close association.

 

In 1 John 5:20, the pronouns “He” and “Him” grammatically refer to the same subject the one described as “true” and this subject is distinct from Jesus, who is referred to separately as “His Son, Jesus Christ.” Therefore, Jesus is not the antecedent of the final statement, “He is the true God and eternal life.”

 

This grammatical rule follows the same pattern as in John 17:3. In both passages, the one referred to as “the true God” is grammatically and contextually distinguished from Jesus Christ, who is mentioned separately. Therefore, in each case, “the true God” refers specifically to God the Father, not to Jesus.

 

 "That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent"

 

Grammatically in Koine Greek, the structure is more precise. The phrase "the only true God" is in the accusative case (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), because it’s the object of the verb “to know” (γινώσκωσιν). Jesus is naming the Father* as the one true God, and placing Himself (Jesus) in a separate category.

 

It’s a shame Christians distort their own text for the sake of winning a theological argument. Such dishonestly only reveals the true nature of their deceptive agenda and motive on where they stand.

 

 

Wrong end of the stick

 

 Christians got the wrong end of the stick. The idea they believe the Qur’an confirms their bible shows they lack in basic Islamic understanding of previous scriptures.

 

Christians have misunderstood the matter. The belief that the Qur’an affirms the authenticity of their Bible reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the Islamic perspective on previous scriptures.

 

The issue lies in the fact that many Christians make assumptions based on what they read, without possessing certain or contextual knowledge. When the Qur’an mentions the Injeel i.e., the Gospel, they automatically assume it refers to the four canonised books of the New Testament.

 

The Islamic position on the understanding of the Injeel is that it contains the description and prophecy of the advent of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh. Surah 61:6 confirms this:

 

“And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmed." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic.”

 

 

It is noteworthy that the verse explicitly mentions the name of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh  'Ahmed'  as the Messenger who is to come. This reference pertains to the Injeel, which is described using the term mubashiran (مُبَشِّرًۢا), meaning 'good news' or 'glad tidings.' Accordingly, the Islamic perspective holds that the Injeel contains the prophecy of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), rather than being centered on Jesus (PBUH) himself. It is understood that the Injeel was revealed to Jesus (PBUH) for the purpose of conveying to the Children of Israel the announcement of the forthcoming Prophet Muhammad Pbuh. This interpretation provides clarity on the Islamic understanding of the Injeel’s message.

 

On the contrary the four Gospels, written by unknown authors, detail the life and message of Jesus Christ, who spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is the main focus of all four books. Each Gospel offers a unique perspective, all focus on Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, forming the foundation of the Christian faith. The Christian position is clear, the Gospels they believe in contain no prophecies about the coming of the last and final Messenger, Prophet Muhammad Pbuh.

 

 

The issue with Christians is that they are conflating two different things. The Injeel mentioned in the Qur’an refers to the good news given to Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, whereas the Gospels followed by Christians are based on the life and teachings of Jesus. The two are not the same; thus, Christians have a significant misunderstanding of the Injeel, assuming it is their book when it clearly is not.

 

Calling it an "Islamic dilemma" is ludicrous. The fact that many Christians don’t even understand what the Injeel is according to the Islamic paradigm shows that their argument is based on a false premise. How can there be a dilemma when the subject i.e. the Injeel has nothing to do with the Christian Gospels? How can the two be compared as if they refer to the same thing?

 

We must make the distinction that the two scriptures are not the same. One is divine revelation the Injeel the other is manmade the Gospels. The story of Jesus’s life is different from the revelation given to him. Christians take his life story as the revelation itself, which is not the Islamic position.

 

The Qur'an distinguishes between Jesus’ true followers and later Christians, implying that the beliefs of historical Christianity diverged from the original message of Jesus further showing that the Qur'an does not affirm the Bible in its developed theological form.

 

The Injeel was a supplement to the mission of Jesus, calling the Children of Israel to account for their actions, guiding them back to Tawhid (monotheism), and giving them the glad tidings of the coming of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh.

 

The Injeel is not the Gospels, nor are the Gospels the Injeel. The two should not be conflated. This misunderstanding presents a dilemma for Christians.