“Messenger of God” —Ace Knight (האגרון)
Global News Centre
האגרון: Correspondence or collector of words. Derives from the ancient given name of “Aharon”, born by the brother of Moses, the first High Priest of the Israelites.
And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs. —Quran 27:82
WAS PROPHET YAHYA/JOHN THE BAPTIST BEHEADED?
We are told by an early historian, Josephus, that Chief Yahya/John the Baptist was put to death because of his political importance. The belief that he was executed is probably related to the New Testament story of his beheading at the behest of Salome, a story the truth of which we reject. Josephus does not mention the manner of his death.
Others have stated that he was beheaded. If it be true that Chief Yahya was put to death by Herod Antipas on the suspicion of planning an insurrection, as Josephus indicates, the punish- ment would not have been beheading. Under Roman law, only Roman citizens were sentenced to beheading. Any non-Roman citizen was sentenced to death by crucifixion for such activity.
This was the case with Jesus, a non-Roman citizen, being accused of treason and sentenced to crucifixion. In addition, we see that when Paul was sentenced to die, he pleaded that he was a Roman citizen so that he would be beheaded and not crucified (Acts 22:27-28).
Certainly, if it was the case that Chief Yahya’s followers were many, spread far and wide, as it has been reported by some, and that Josephus mentions that the Jews were greatly moved by his words, and that Herod Antipas feared that Chief Yahya’s influence over the masses would cause a rebellious uprising leading to a revolt by the Jews against the Romans (Antiquities 18:5.2 116-119), then this would be in accord with the practice of capital punishment of such criminals under Roman law. That is, that non-Roman citizens be crucified.
As far as his being beheaded by Antipas, now believed to be a fiction, we know that records show Herod the Great lost his power to execute anyone. It is also known that he had to bring those whom he wanted to execute to the Roman authorities, as he had lost his title of “Caesar’s Friend.”
With that in mind, there is nothing whatsoever showing that this power to execute prisoners was ever restored to his heirs, one of whom was Herod Antipas. If Antipas had wanted to execute Chief Yahya/John the Baptist, he most likely would have needed permission from Rome to do so. If this be true, then the punishment would have to have been crucifixion and not beheading as this was reserved for Roman citizens. Would it be fair to say that the High Priest Caiaphas, who was endorsed by Rome, had a problem with this new Black Chief whom the masses were flocking to see by the River Jordan? Would it be fair to say that Chief Yahya/John the Baptist threatened not only the throne of Antipas, but also the Jewish religious establishment?
Would it be fair to say that both Antipas and Caiaphas conspired together to do away with Chief Yahya? That thee Sanhedrin and Antipas could not execute anyone should be kept in mind. Would it be fair to say that Chief/Yahya was arrested and brought before Pilate? The Prophet Yahya could not have been beheaded as has been stated by Muslim and Christian scholars. With regard to Jesus, in the Quran we read: “Peace on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day I will be raised up again.” (Q. 19:33)
The verse states that Jesus was given safety and security in these three situations. But what about the son of Zechariah? We find the same description for him as we find for Jesus: “Peace on him the day he is born, the day he dies, and the day he is raised up again.” (Q. 19:15)
How does the supposed beheading of this prophet fit in with the above Quranic verse of one given peace by his Lord? We find in the commentary of Ibn Kathir that Yahya was also given safety and security in these three situations, but the book speciously ascribed to Ibn Kathir, Stories of the Prophets, agrees with the Gospel accounts of Chief Yahya’s being beheaded and the serving of his head on a platter.
How do we explain the beheading of this Prophet of God? How, then, is he one who was “safe and secure”? Are we to say that God saved Jesus, but abandoned Yahya? Is this divine justice? Josephus’s account of the imprisonment and execution of Yahya/John the Baptist would place it in the middle of the fourth decade, say 35 or 36 AD and therefore years after the events of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus, not before. In The New Testament: An Islamic Perspective, Crook writes, “Josephus’ evidence creates a colossal chronological problem of enormous consequences.” That is still true. Since we also know that while the
gospels portray John in their narratives primarily to introduce and testify to Jesus’ superior stature, we also know from Josephus, that John/Yahya was a major player on the Palestinian stage, not just a walk-on to herald the messiahship of Jesus. Subsequently, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas were both removed in 36 AD. Where does the supposed crucifixion of Jesus fit in here exactly? The two principal characters in the gospels responsible for allegedly crucifying Jesus were no longer in power (Roman governor Pontius Pilate–Ant. XVIII, iv, 2; Caiaphas the High Priest–Ant. XVIII, iv, 3)
Consider the following examples of the way God dealt with his prophets: “And, certainly, Noah cried out to Us. And how excellent were the ones who answer! And We delivered him and his people from tremendous distress. And We made his offspring—they, the ones who remain. And We left for him to say with the later ones: Peace be on Noah among the worlds. (Q. 37:79)
About Prophets Moses and Aaron: “And, certainly, We showed Our grace to Moses and Aaron. And We delivered them and their folk from the tremendous distress and helped them so that they, they had been the ones who are victors. And We gave them the manifest Book and guided them to the straight path. We left for them a good name with the later ones: Peace be on Moses and Aaron! (Q 37:114-120) About Prophet Lot: “Truly, he was of Our servants, ones who believe. And, truly, Lot was of the ones who are sent. We delivered him and his people, one and all, but an old woman of the ones who stay behind. Again, We destroyed the others.” (Q. 37:133-136)
About Prophet Jonah: “Then, the great fish engulfed him while he was one who is answerable. If he had not been of the ones who glorify, he would have lingered in expectation in its belly until the Day they are raised up.” (Q. 37:142-144)
All of them, plus Jesus, and Muhammad—as far as we know, all the prophets mentioned by name in the Quran were delivered from their enemies. Yet, the Prophet Yahya, whose name ironically means “He Lives,” is popularly supposed to have been put to death. Clearly, you can see how this story of the beheading creates an inconsistency with a text believed by Muslims all over the world to be internally consistent.
It is my belief that Prophet Yahya was possibly put on the cross and not Jesus. However, he did not die on the cross. By God’s giving him the name of Yahya (“he who lives”) in the Quran and the Quranic fact that the Messiah was not crucified, but it appeared to the people as such, the Quran is telling us that that person was Chief Yahya (The Black Prophet).
Chief Yahya survives as he lives out the words from God of “peace be upon him” as was the case with Prophet Abraham when he was thrown in the fire yet he was saved, “We said: O fire! Be coolness and peace for Abraham!” (21:69); hence: “Peace be on Abraham! Thus We give recompense to the ones who are doers of good! (37:110)”
Chief Yahya died a natural death at some later time, as did Jesus. It is my belief from my understanding of the Quran that Yahya was raised up in honor (rafa‘a) as was Jesus. Because this is not mentioned in the Quran, it does not mean that it could not have happened this way. Again, we must turn to the Quran and its “divine wisdom” to receive understanding. When one compares Isa/Jesus and Yahya/John, we can observe that Jesus has been mentioned in detail, whereas John has not. Here are some examples for one to consider:
The Quran tells us that Jesus was sent to the children of Israel, but John is not mentioned as being sent to them. Was John sent to the children of Israel? Of course he was. Jesus in the Quran preaches to the children of Israel, but John is not mentioned. Did John preach to the children of Israel? Of course he did. We are told that Jesus had disciples, but John’s are not mentioned. Did he have disciples? Of course he did. We are told that Jesus received the Gospel (Injil), but John’s revelation was not specified, but he was told to hold onto the scripture with might. Did John receive scripture from his Lord as did Jesus? Of course he did. Because John is not mentioned in similar circumstances, it does not mean that he was not as favored as Jesus.
Countless works have been published pertaining to the false crucifixion of the son of Mary by Muslims, yet the false beheading of the son of Zachariah is ignored, why?
Sayyid/Black Chief Q. 3:39
Prophet Yahya is referred to as a sayyid, chief in the Quran. The commentators have interpreted this to mean that he was a scholar of religious law, a wise man, a noble wise and pious man, and so forth. This was a prophet of God. Knowledge and wisdom were given to him by his Lord. The title given to Yahya by his Lord shows that Prophet Yahya is one who has spiritual authority over his people and not “noble” or “honorable” as this word is usually translated. Honor and nobility are good qualities, but they fail to indicate that Prophet Yahya was also given a role of leadership by his Lord.
Moreover, why has the title of Sayyid not been exclusively reserved for the prophet Yahya as is the title Messiah for Jesus? If one were to say Messehu Muhammad, Muslims would quickly respond astagfurullah (seeking forgiveness as if one had committed a huge mistake). They would insist that this title is exclusively for the son of Mary. Would it not be fair to ask why then is the title Sayyid, given by God, not exclusive for the prophet Yahya? Keep in mind that technically, any of the prophets, messengers, and righteous servants of God can be called “Messiah: as it means “one who is anointed or appointed for divine service.
That being said, no one has the right to be called Sayyid in this meaning, not the so-called descendants of Muhammad, and most certainly not the Prophet Muhammad himself. This, in my opinion, would be a great injustice, Quranically speaking. It should also be noted that the word sayyid shares the same root as sud meaning “black.” I see Prophet Yahya as the Black Chief who has inherited the House of Jacob; hence, The Black Prophet. The word also signifies “greater or greatest in estimation, rank, or dignity” (aswadu).
Hasur/Concealer of Secrets Q. 3:39
My research shows that the Arabic word hasur does not mean “chaste” with regard to Yahya; rather, it means a “concealer of secrets.” Why the mistake in translation and commentary? As there was no extensive information given in the Quran about the life of Prophet Yahya nor in the Traditions (Hadith), the commentators turned to Christian tradition and simply repeated what they found there.
That said, in fact the commentators of the Quran have placed considerable emphasis on this word. Al-Tabari interprets the word hasur to mean one who abstains from sexual inter- course with women. He then reports a Tradition on the authority of Said ibn al-Musayyab which has Prophet Muhammad commenting on this: “‘Everyone of the sons of Adam shall come on the Day of Resurrection with a sin (of sexual impropriety) except Yahya bin Zechariah.’ Then, picking up a tiny straw, he continued, ‘this is because his generative organ was no bigger then this straw’ (implying that he was impotent).”
Does this mean that even the prophets other than Yahya will be raised up with this sin of sexual impropriety? How can we accept that this was said by such a modest human being as the Prophet of Islam, comparing a straw to another prophet’s generative organ and perhaps implying that Yahya was impotent?
Another commentator, Ibn Kathir, a renowned Islamic scholar, rejects this view and adds: “This would be a defect and a blemish unworthy of prophets.” He then mentions that it was not that he had no sexual relations with women, but that he had no illegal sexual relations with them. Indeed, the whole discussion is unseemly.
It is known that prophets of God are immune from major sins, so this statement makes no sense at all when interpreting the word hasur. In addition, I would like to mention the fact that in his commentary, Ibn Kathir says he (Yahya) probably married and had children. He said this on the basis of what was related in the Quran of the prayer of Zachariah.
There are several reasons why interpreting hasur in this context as “chaste” or “celibate,” as has been done by many commentators, is a misinterpretation: First of all, there is another word in the Quran for “chaste” and that is muhsin. As God used a different word, hasur, it must imply something different.
Secondly, God says in the Quran that Islam did not bring Monasticism, but that it was something that they (the Christians) invented. (Q. 57:27) Also: “And verily We sent messengers (to mankind) before thee, and We appointed for them wives and offspring, and it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by God’s leave. For everything there is a time prescribed.” (Q. 13:38)
This definitely does not recommendation monasticism. Furthermore, we find in the Traditions that the Prophet said that there is no monasticism in Islam. Therefore, God would not have sent a Prophet who was celibate. In addition, it is contrary to the famous exhortation in the Torah to “go forth and multiply.”
Thirdly, Yahya’s father, Zechariah prayed for a protector who would provide descendants (dhurriyah) for his family: Zachariah called to his Lord, saying: “My Lord! Bestow on me good offspring from Thy presence; truly, Thou art hearing supplication.” (Q. 3:38) God gave him Yahya. God would not have sent a son to Zechariah who would not carry on the line of Jacob’s descendants because then God would not have answered the prayer of Zechariah.
The word hasur is used once in the Quran and that is in regard to the Prophet Yahya. A major Arabic-English lexicon, that of Edward William Lane (Taj al-Arus) states that when hasur is used alone, it means “concealer of secrets.” In his translation of Ibn al-Arabi’s Book of the Fabulous Gryphon, (Gerald T. Elmore, Islamic Sainthood in the Fullness of Time, Brill 1999, p. 482) Elmore also translates the Arabic hasur as concealer of secrets. In the referenced passage, “chaste” would not have been appropriate.
Waliy: Guardian/Protector Q. 19:5
In this verse and many other places in the Quran means “protector” or “guardian,” rather than “heir” or “successor.” Waliy can also refer to the Levites, as they were Protectors or Guardians of sacred places.
In this specific case, Zechariah prayed to his Lord: “And truly I have feared my defenders after me and my wife has been a barren woman. So bestow on me from that which proceeds from Thy Presence a protector (waliy).” In Q. 3:39, Zachariah’s prayer is answered, “…God, giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) Yahya (who cometh) to confirm a word from God, and (he will be) a chief (sayyid), and concealer of secrets (hasur), a prophet of the righteous.” Thus John became the waliy “protector” or “guardian” of Mary and Jesus. It can also imply that John is safeguarding revelation as a whole.
It is commonly thought that Zachariah was simply asking for a son; however, this misconception may be corrected by reading further on in the text. After receiving this good news, Zachariah asked, “O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when age hath touched me already and my wife is barren? ” Zachariah was asking how this would be possible as he had not even contemplated being blessed with a son in his old age, and that with a barren wife.
Compare this with Mary who said, when she was given good news of a son, “How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?” (Q. 3:47) Both Zechariah and Mary were asking about the possibility of such a thing. If Zachariah were asking for a son, as has been suggested by many scholars of Islam, than why did he ask such a question when God informed him of the impending birth?
The truth is that Zachariah was not asking for a son explicitly. He was asking God to send him a divinely appointed protector, from the same place whence Maryam received her provisions (rizq); hence “Give me from thy presence a protector (waliy)” (Q. 19:5, 3:38).
Yahya: He Lives/ Samiy: Unique Q. 19:7
The names Yahya and Yu’hanan are not the same as many assume. They have two entirely different roots. Hanan and the hannah both derive from the Semitic root h n n. While the word hannah means “mercy or tenderness,” the root word for Yahya is h y y. It means “life” or “he lives.” One does not need to be a linguist to see the obvious difference.
In addition, I would like also to mention that this name and attribute given to Prophet Yahya can also be found in Sabian literature. The Sabians are mentioned in the Quran in verses (Q. 2:62), (Q. 5:69) and (Q. 22:17) and in their canonical prayer book we find Yahya Yuhanna.
It has been known that it was the practice of the Sabians to have two names, a real name and a special name. According to the Sabians, this prophet’s real name was Yahya (he lives) and his lay name was Yuhanna (John).
Prophet Yahya is the only one who was given this name, as the Quran clearly states: “O Zechariah! Truly We give thee the good tidings of a boy; his name will be Yahya (he who lives) and We assign it not as a namesake (samiy) for anyone before.”
Again, another word that we need to pay attention to is samiy. It is used twice in the Quran, once in reference to Chief Yahya (Q. 19:7) “O Zechariah! Truly We give thee the good tidings of a boy; his name will be Yahya and We assign it not as a namesake for anyone before.”
The other time it is used is in reference to God. “…Knowest thou any namesake (samiy) for Him [God]?” (Q. 19:65) In the famous Arabic lexicon Lisan al-Arab, the root s m w means “elevation or highness.”
TREAD CAREFULLY —Ace Knight
Lead Editor, Ph.D., Stanford University:
Ace Knight is a first generation American of Albanian descent. He is devoted to a few things. One is his family, another is his religion, and yet a third is intellectual and spiritual religious inquiry. His book is a tribute to this devotion and inquiry. It is a brilliant and original look at the Gospels and the Quran, as well as the earlier Mosaic texts. In this book, the self-taught Knight, with no formal education, points out linguistic and spiritual parallels between generations of key characters in three religious histories. A devout and inquiring Muslim, using the close reading of the Quran as his guide, Knight, is able to look back at the central story of the crucifixion through a new lens, the Muslim lens, using key passages from a number of religious scriptures to build a fascinating new argument. His thoughts, insights and interpretations are remarkable, profound, and leave the reader in awe.
Knight notices that a son is born to the prophet Zachariah at about the same time as a son is born to Mary. He systematically and spell-bindingly leads us through the parallels between these two prophets, the second of whom we have come to know as Jesus. Both are raised in secrecy, and bring prophesy and healing. Both are spared somehow the decree of Herod at birth, only to befall religious ostracism and apparent physical mutilation beheading/crucifixion at the time of apparent earthly death.
Knight takes us through the similarities in these prophet’s lives, their coming into the lives of their parents, as the sons had done, in response to prayer, or in the unlikely moment, for Mary, of her chastity. The coming together of Zachariah and Mary is cemented with the former shielding Mary from harm as her foster-father. Knight brings us back further in scriptural history to draw other such parallels when it comes to prophets, and he draws upon the Arabic roots of the names of these figures, from Adam to Zachariah’s son, to convince the reader of his novel contribution to scriptural reading. But I’m not going to give that away! For that, you must read the book yourself!
This book is slim, but both erudite and yet easy to follow, in its step by step progression through the many scriptures, seemingly so familiar is Ace Knight with every passage, the apt ones come easily to mind for him, and strike an immediate cord in us, no matter how familiar or unfamiliar we are with the text and story. And yet, this book is no recipe for persuasion. It is much more sophisticated than that. Written in a devout and true Muslim spirit, it is also—as mentioned at the beginning of this review—an inquiry and a wholly new contribution to that body of sculptural scholarship.
Ace Knight advances a theory which sheds an entirely novel light on the views that are commonplace today, and, through an examination of linguistics, passages, intent, and meaning, causes us to re-examine, in an exciting, clue-ridden way, what we have assumed to be true about the three major religions for centuries, concentrating on his own Muslim faith.
Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub
Professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations Hartford Seminary, Hartford CT:
(This book) by Ace Knight is an engaging analysis of the life and mission of the two kindred religious personages, John the Baptist (Yahya) and Jesus (`Isa). Even though the central argument of the book, namely that the man who was hung on the cross was John and not Jesus, may be academically open to question as it rests on circumstantial evidence, the book will add much to the discussion of an epoch-making event that has shaped world history.
The book is informative and entertaining. It is certainly worth reading.
Award winning journalist Tim King:
If all of Ace Knight’s research and the conclusions he draws from it prove to be valid, then the traditional view of John the Baptist/Yahya, both scholarly and conventional, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, will be subjected to a tidal wave of revision and reconsideration. This will also affect most extant translations of the Quran into English, with the exception of The Sublime Quran by Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar which incorporates all of his results that relate to Quranic verses. Additionally, the great collections of medieval Islamic commentaries, both Sunni and Shia, which often repeat such colorful Biblical stories as the beheading of John the Baptist, will have to be viewed more critically. Such revisionism is sure to meet with a strong opposition.
Dr. Jay R. Crook Author of The Bible: An Islamic Perspective:
Ace Knight’s controversial book, vigorously challenges the conventional view of John the Baptist as little more than the baptizer of Jesus and the herald of his messiahship. The result of years of study, it expounds his revolutionary theories about the life, work, and significance of the neglected prophet. The John/Yahya that Work brings forth from the shadows of history is a major prophet in his own right, with an independent stature and mission. The book is a thought-provoking and fascinating re-examination of the prophet’s place in history.
M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D.
Creator of Thought Addiction programs:
I am impressed with the amount of detail Ace, as well his editor and good friend Jay Crook, have used in composing this remarkable thesis. No easy task, Ace sets about trying to justify, clarify, and rectify, as applicable, the disparities within various retellings of the history of John the Baptist and his relationship to Jesus the Christ. It is apparent to some that political movements of the time either changed, restricted or completely eliminated various contributions to the bible. It is conceivable that all such scriptural offerings in all the various religions underwent various pressures of a similar type.
Ace opens several windows with which to air questions and suggestions that might lead to greater reasoning, awareness and understanding… part of a great gift we often take for granted (or, in some cases, refuse to employ). It is telling that some men will welcome a flame with which they may explore caverns of thought previously cursed by darkness while others will curse the flame and cling to the walls of darkness swearing that this is all there is… and all that should be. My brother Ace is most definitely the former.
Roger H. Sigal, Trial Attorney – Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Knight has reflected an unparalleled inner commitment towards becoming a more spiritually-evolved and God-devoted person, and towards unraveling the truths and myths behind the Islamic, Judaic and Christian theologies. This substantial piece of scholarship is the result of the years of devotion to which Mr. Knight has dedicated himself, towards understanding, questioning, and seeking new perspectives on the religious traditions and issues of our times.
R. Bangor, Ph.D.
I opened the book cautiously, expecting the polemics of yet another anti-Christian diatribe, but was surprised to find instead a reasoned academic examination of some aspects of early Christian history as preserved in the New Testament, the writings of Josephus, and elsewhere that cause me to reconsider the role of John the Baptist in the drama of Jesus the Messiah. Islamic sources are also explored. One may not agree with all of the book’s conclusions, but enough information is presented in the text and footnotes of this remarkable study to cause one to pause and rethink our assumptions about the importance of this relatively neglected prophet in the history of monotheism. An interesting read!
Prof. Patrick Dreier/Encore Music Academy
A More Likely Scenario. An Inspiring Read.
A well written and well thought out alternative to what was at best a problematic and most likely fictitious account of the personalities involved in the crucifixion. Knight’s evidence to support his supposition is very strong, much stronger than can be found in the new testament. A very enlightening and entertaining read.
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar Resident Scholar Kazi Publications and first American woman to translate the Qur’an
(See The Sublime Quran and The Concordance of The Sublime Quran):
There are two methods of gaining knowledge in the great religious traditions of the world in general, and Islam, in particular. One method is knowledge that is imitated (taqlid) or transmitted by hearsay from generation to generation like the sciences of language, history and law. With this method, a person never asks “Why?” but accepts what is taught by an authority. In the Islamic tradition this leads to ijtihad, ijtihad specifically referring to developing expertise in jurisprudence (fiqh) to the level of being able to use independent judgment in understanding Islamic law (Shariah). Such a person is known as a mujtahid. Whoever is not a mujtahid, whoever has not reached that level, must “imitate” or “follow” a person who has, whether that person is dead (Sunni Muslims) or alive (Shia Muslims).
The second method of gaining knowledge is what is of most interest to us in this book review, that of tahqiq or intellectual knowledge where one may have a teacher for guidance but it is knowledge that cannot be passed from one generation to another. Each person has to discover it for himself or herself by “polishing the heart.” by becoming a person who sees with the eye of Oneness or tawhid, a person who deeply senses his responsibility to God, His creation and His humanity.
The person who gains knowledge with this method is called “a seeker of truth” (muhaqqiq). Intellectual knowledge (tahqiq) builds on transmitted knowledge but goes deeper. Transmitted knowledge includes memorizers of the Quran and the Hadith but only with intellectual knowledge can one understand what God and the Prophet are saying. Those who lack this intellectual endeavor have, one might say, not sought the means to see with the eye of “Oneness.”
Questions like “why” are not the only ones that the intellect of the seeker of truth asks because the underlying distinction is to think, “to think for oneself,” and not to stop at “imitation alone.” Not everyone has been burdened with this capacity as the Quran says in 2:286, but one person who has is Ace Knight. He is a seeker of truth, seeker of the Reality (haqq), a person who has verified knowledge, not on the basis of imitating the opinion of others, but on the basis of having realized the truth for himself as well as being one who acts in accord with haqq, all the time realizing his belief in the One God, the one creation and the one humanity.
A faith tradition may survive without a living mujtahid, but it rapidly disappears without a living muhaqqiq. Without a living seeker of truth, a seeker of reality, the faith tradition cannot remain faithful to its principles because it cannot understand those principles. A faith tradition may survive without a living mujtahid, but it rapidly disappears without a living muhaqqiq. Without a living seeker of truth, a seeker of reality, the faith tradition cannot remain faithful to its principles because it cannot understand those principles. Ace Knight’s basic premise is to follow the Quran and the New Testament which all assert that Jesus is the Messiah. However according to the Quran, it only appeared to the people who bore witness to the Messiah that he had been crucified.
In reality, according to the intellectual endeavor of the author, it was “he who lives” (Yahya), the Concealer of Secrets (hasura), as the Quran refers to him who was placed on the cross and lived.
The Concealer of Secrets concealed the secret of his identity and that of the Messiah in order to save the Messiah. The Messiah was then allowed to carry on his prophetic mission (perhaps traveling even as far as Kashmir where many believe that he is buried). At the same time that Mary retired to a sanctuary, Zechariah becoming her protector, Zechariah prayed for a heir. The son of Mary was close in age to the son of man (the Concealer of Secrets fathered by Zechariah). They may have even been cousins who resembled one another. They both began their prophetic mission around the same time yet neither revealed themselves as to who they actually were.
The author traces these and other parallels in the lives of the son of Mary and the son of man for a fascinating read. In the great tradition of seekers of truth in the past, Ace Knight brings harmony to ancient mysteries. He shows the possibility of how things may be in the Presence of the Oneness of God and he does so through scriptures – the Quran, and the New Testament.
This is a book that should be read by everyone who wants to discern the Reality of the story of the Messiah.
- See more at: http://www.globalnewscentre.com/amazing-new-painting-of-john-the-baptist-by-artist-toni-l-taylor/#sthash.R5VOo2mR.dpuf
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.