The Antichrist Will Uphold the Trinity While Jesus Christ Will Be Against It — According to Islam

Introduction

In Islamic eschatology, the end-times narrative is rich with powerful figures, dramatic events, and spiritual trials. Among these, two of the most significant personalities are the Dajjal (often translated as the Antichrist) and Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary). A striking element of Islamic belief is that, contrary to some interpretations in Christian theology, the Dajjal will promote a false theology that includes the doctrine of the Trinity, while Jesus Christ, when he returns, will correct this by affirming strict monotheism (Tawhid). This key difference underscores Islam's theological stance on the nature of God and serves as a defining contrast between truth and deception in the end times.

---

Islamic Understanding of Tawhid vs. Trinity

At the heart of Islamic theology is Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Islam teaches that God (Allah) is singular, indivisible, and utterly unique. The Qur'an rejects any division or association in God's nature. This is expressed in verses such as:

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him."
— Surah Al-Ikhlas (112:1-4)

By contrast, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which states that God is three persons in one essence — the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit — is seen in Islam as a theological error introduced after Jesus’ time. The Qur’an directly addresses this idea:

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah... So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and do not say 'Three'. Cease! (It is) better for you. Allah is only One God."
— Surah An-Nisa (4:171)

Therefore, any promotion of the Trinity is, from an Islamic perspective, a deviation from pure monotheism.

---

Who Is the Dajjal?

In Islamic eschatology, the Dajjal is a false messiah, a deceiver who will appear before the Day of Judgment. He will claim divinity, perform deceptive miracles, and mislead many. Numerous hadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ) describe the Dajjal in detail — physically, behaviorally, and ideologically.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

"No tribulation on earth since the creation of Adam’s children will be greater than the trial of the Dajjal."
— Sahih Muslim

One of the ways the Dajjal will deceive people is by claiming to be divine or a representation of God on Earth, which aligns closely with certain interpretations of Trinitarian theology that elevate Jesus to divine status.

In this context, Islamic scholars interpret the Dajjal as a symbol of religious distortion, one who promotes theological ideas like the Trinity, which Islam views as misrepresentations of God’s oneness.

---

Jesus Christ in Islam: The Clarifier of Truth

In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is a revered prophet and messenger, born miraculously to the Virgin Mary, and granted miracles by God's permission. However, Islam denies both his crucifixion and divinity.

Instead, the Qur’an teaches:

"...They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so to them..."
— Surah An-Nisa (4:157)

Muslims believe that Jesus was raised up by God and that he will return before the Day of Judgment. His second coming will serve to correct false beliefs that developed after his departure.

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

"By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, the son of Mary will shortly descend among you... He will break the cross, kill the swine, and abolish the jizya (tax), and wealth will overflow..."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim

“Breaking the cross” is widely interpreted by Islamic scholars as refuting the theology of crucifixion and the divinity of Jesus — in other words, directly rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

---

The Dajjal’s Deception: Elevating Jesus as Divine?

While the Qur'an never uses the word "Trinity" to describe the Dajjal's agenda directly, many hadiths and scholarly interpretations suggest that the Dajjal will promote himself as a divine savior, exploiting the Christian narrative of Jesus’ divinity to gain followers.

The Dajjal’s role is deeply deceptive; he will even claim to be God. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ warned:

"The Dajjal will say: 'I am your Lord.'"
— Sunan Ibn Majah

This claim, paired with supernatural acts, may mimic the Christian image of the Second Coming of Christ — leading people who believe in Jesus as divine to follow him mistakenly.

Thus, in a dramatic theological irony, the Antichrist (Dajjal) will promote ideas resembling the deification of Jesus, while the real Jesus will return to oppose these very ideas.

---

Theological Implications: Jesus vs. the Trinity

When Jesus returns, Islamic tradition states he will:

1. Break the cross – Symbolizing the end of the idea that he was crucified or died for humanity’s sins.

2. Kill the swine – Representing the rejection of religious innovations.

3. Abolish the jizya – Signaling that Islam will be the dominant religion and that Jesus will rule by Islamic law.

These actions are not just political—they are deeply theological. They symbolize the restoration of pure monotheism and the rejection of all divine attributions to Jesus himself.

In contrast, the Dajjal will perform false miracles, offer material incentives, and promote the illusion of salvation through a corrupted image of Jesus—one that upholds divinity, atonement through crucifixion, and the Trinity.

---

Summary: Two Opposing Figures

Element	Dajjal (Antichrist)	Isa (Jesus Christ)
Claims to be	God or divine	Messenger of God
Supports	Idolatry, possible Trinity, false theology	Tawhid (oneness of God)
Symbolism	Deception, false salvation	Truth, correction of belief
Mission	Mislead, dominate temporarily	Restore monotheism, defeat the Dajjal

---

Conclusion

In Islamic belief, the conflict between the Dajjal and Jesus is more than physical—it is theological. The Dajjal represents distorted beliefs, including potentially the doctrine of the Trinity. Meanwhile, Jesus returns not as a new prophet or divine being, but as a servant of God sent to correct these misconceptions and reestablish the oneness of Allah.

This eschatological narrative serves as a powerful reinforcement of Tawhid and a warning against innovations that compromise pure monotheism. It also highlights the Islamic view of Jesus as a truthful and noble prophet, not divine—one whose legacy has been misinterpreted, but who will return to set the record straight.

Jesus was not God nor Son of God, He was only a Jewish Messiah and a Rabbi

The figure of Jesus of Nazareth has inspired billions across millennia. To Christians, He is the divine Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, and the Savior of the world. However, this interpretation is not universal. A growing number of scholars, religious thinkers, and historians argue that Jesus was not God, nor the literal Son of God, but rather a Jewish teacher—perhaps a messianic claimant—whose message was rooted firmly in Jewish tradition. According to this view, Jesus was a rabbi, a spiritual leader in first-century Judea, and possibly a political figure, but not divine.

This article explores the historical, theological, and textual evidence supporting the view that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and not divine, tracing the development of Christian theology and contrasting it with what is known about Jesus' life, context, and teachings.

---

A Historical Context: First-Century Judaism

To understand Jesus accurately, one must place Him within the context of first-century Judaism. Jesus was born, lived, taught, and died as a Jew. His followers were Jews. His teachings drew on the Hebrew Scriptures. He observed Jewish customs such as Passover, the Sabbath, and the festivals. The title "rabbi," while not formalized in His time as it is today, was commonly used for respected Jewish teachers, and the Gospels themselves refer to Jesus with this title (e.g., John 1:38).

The notion of a divine messiah or an incarnation of God was foreign to the Jewish worldview of Jesus’ time. Judaism, both then and now, maintains a strict monotheism: God is one, indivisible, eternal, and without form (Deuteronomy 6:4). The very idea that God could become a man—or that a man could become divine—would have been considered blasphemous by many Jews of that era.

---

Jesus as a Teacher and Healer

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is depicted as a teacher and healer. He interprets Torah, debates with Pharisees, teaches in synagogues, and preaches repentance and the coming Kingdom of God. These roles align with those of itinerant Jewish preachers of His time. His teachings reflect the values and ethics of the Hebrew Bible: love of neighbor, justice, mercy, and humility.

The Sermon on the Mount, often cited as Jesus' moral high point, is deeply rooted in Jewish prophetic tradition. His parables draw from everyday Jewish life and are aimed at renewing the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, not abolishing it or replacing it with a new religion.

---

The Concept of Messiah in Judaism

The term "Messiah" (Hebrew: Mashiach) means “anointed one.” In Jewish tradition, this refers to a future human leader, descended from King David, who will restore Israel, rebuild the Temple, and bring peace to the world. Importantly, the Messiah is not considered divine.

Some Jews in the Second Temple period expected a messiah who would deliver them from Roman oppression. Jesus may have fit this expectation for some, which explains why He was hailed as "Messiah" by His followers. However, Jesus did not fulfill the core messianic prophecies as understood in Judaism: He did not establish universal peace, rebuild the Temple, or bring all Jews back to Israel.

This failure to fulfill messianic expectations is one key reason why Judaism never accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

---

Jesus Never Claimed Divinity

A careful reading of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) shows no clear declaration by Jesus that He is God. While later theological interpretations read divinity into phrases like “Son of Man” or “I and the Father are one” (from the Gospel of John), scholars argue that these are theological reflections written decades after Jesus' death, not direct quotations.

In the earliest Gospel (Mark), Jesus consistently redirects praise to God and refers to Himself as a servant. In Matthew 19:17, when a man calls Jesus “Good,” Jesus replies, “Why do you call me good? There is only One who is good.” Statements like these point to humility and a clear distinction between Himself and God.

The Gospel of John, written later than the others (around 90-100 CE), contains the most explicit claims of divinity, but even these are contested by scholars as reflecting the beliefs of the community rather than the historical Jesus.

---

The Evolution of the “Son of God” Concept

The title "Son of God" in Jewish culture did not imply divinity. Kings of Israel were sometimes called “sons of God” as a symbolic title of favor or authority (Psalm 2:7). In that context, calling Jesus the “Son of God” could have meant He was chosen or blessed by God, not that He was God Himself.

It was only later, under Greco-Roman influence and as Christianity spread among Gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish traditions, that the term took on divine connotations. The Hellenistic world was filled with stories of demigods and divine beings walking the earth—cultural ideas that likely influenced early Christian theology.

---

The Council of Nicaea and the Deification of Jesus

One of the most pivotal moments in transforming Jesus from a Jewish teacher into a divine figure occurred in 325 CE at the Council of Nicaea. Convened by Emperor Constantine, the council aimed to unify the Christian faith across the Roman Empire. There, it was declared that Jesus was “of one substance with the Father”—a direct assertion of His divinity.

This decision, though, was as much political as theological. It marked a sharp departure from earlier, more diverse understandings of Jesus, some of which saw Him as a man specially appointed by God, not as God Himself.

---

Jewish Views on Jesus

From a Jewish perspective, Jesus is recognized as a historical figure, possibly even a charismatic teacher, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. Judaism rejects the Trinity, incarnation, and original sin—core Christian doctrines—as incompatible with the Torah.

For many Jews, Jesus was one of many messianic claimants of the time. Others included Simon Bar Kokhba and Theudas, both of whom also garnered followings but were later dismissed when their messianic hopes failed to materialize.

---

Conclusion: Jesus the Rabbi, Not the Deity

In sum, the evidence from history, scripture, and theology suggests that Jesus was not God nor the literal Son of God, but rather a Jewish rabbi and perhaps a messianic teacher. He operated within the framework of Jewish law, taught in Jewish settings, and addressed a Jewish audience. His message, though radical in love and humility, did not seek to overturn Jewish monotheism but to call Israel back to it.

The belief in Jesus’ divinity developed over time, shaped by external cultural forces and theological necessity in the formation of Christian identity. But to view Jesus as a man—a teacher, a prophet, a reformer—is to return Him to His historical and religious roots.

Understanding Jesus as a Jewish rabbi may not satisfy Christian theological expectations, but it offers a perspective rooted in history and supported by the earliest textual and cultural evidence.

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart D. Ehrman

In the world of biblical scholarship, few names are as recognizable as Bart D. Ehrman. A former evangelical turned agnostic and a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ehrman has spent decades studying the New Testament and early Christianity. His 2012 book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, tackles a controversial and surprisingly persistent question: Did the historical figure of Jesus ever exist?

In this work, Ehrman answers with a firm yes—arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure, even if much of the supernatural and theological content associated with him developed later. Importantly, Ehrman is not writing as a Christian apologist but as a historian, and he challenges both mythicists (those who claim Jesus was entirely invented) and believers with the same rigorous application of historical methodology.

The Context: A Rising Wave of Mythicism

Ehrman wrote Did Jesus Exist? in response to the growing popularity of the Jesus myth theory—the idea that Jesus never existed and was instead invented by early Christians as a purely mythical figure. While this theory has existed in various forms since the 19th century, the internet age has helped it gain traction in popular circles, often appealing to atheists, skeptics, or anti-religious voices.

What troubled Ehrman, a well-known critic of biblical literalism himself, was that mythicism was often masquerading as legitimate scholarship, despite being rejected by virtually all credentialed historians of antiquity. In his book, he sets out to explain why professional historians, regardless of their personal beliefs, accept the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.

The Argument: Jesus as a Historical Man

Ehrman begins by distinguishing between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. The Jesus worshipped in Christianity—miracle-working, born of a virgin, raised from the dead—is not the same as the Jesus scholars attempt to recover through historical investigation. For Ehrman, the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who lived in first-century Palestine, was baptized by John the Baptist, attracted a following, and was executed by the Romans.

He builds his argument on several pillars:

1. Independent Sources

One of Ehrman's key points is that multiple independent sources attest to the existence of Jesus. These include:

• The Gospels, particularly Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which although written decades after Jesus’ death, contain material drawn from earlier traditions.

• Paul’s letters, written within a generation of Jesus’ life, where Paul references Jesus as a real, recently-living person who had a brother (James) and was crucified.

• Non-Christian sources, such as Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Josephus, a Jewish historian, both of whom mention Jesus or early Christians in ways that align with a historical figure rather than a mythological one.

Ehrman emphasizes that historical scholars evaluate these sources critically—not for theological accuracy, but for whether they reflect authentic, earlier traditions about a real individual.

2. The Criterion of Embarrassment

Ehrman points out that some of the material about Jesus would have been embarrassing or problematic for early Christians, and thus unlikely to be invented. For example:

• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, implying that he was subordinate to John.

• Jesus was crucified, a form of execution reserved for criminals and rebels—a deeply shameful death that would have been hard to explain to potential converts.

These elements, Ehrman argues, are unlikely to be fabrications. Their presence suggests that the early Christians were passing on traditions rooted in actual events.

3. Paul’s Letters and the Brother of Jesus

Ehrman places special weight on the fact that Paul mentions meeting James, “the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19). This reference is brief and incidental, suggesting Paul saw James as a biological sibling of Jesus. For Ehrman, this is a powerful piece of historical evidence: it is very hard to explain a mythical Jesus having a brother known to the early Christian community.

4. The Jewish Context

Ehrman underscores that Jesus fits within the broader context of first-century Judaism. Apocalyptic prophets and messianic movements were not uncommon in the volatile atmosphere of Roman-occupied Judea. Jesus’ message about the coming Kingdom of God aligns with other known apocalyptic figures, lending further plausibility to his historicity.

Taking on the Mythicists

A large portion of Did Jesus Exist? is dedicated to refuting mythicist arguments. Ehrman critiques authors such as Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and others, arguing that their methods lack scholarly rigor. He challenges claims that the Jesus story is based on pagan mythologies or that there is a total lack of evidence for Jesus' existence.

Ehrman also tackles the “silence” of early sources, such as the fact that Paul rarely quotes Jesus’ teachings. He explains that this was not unusual given the letter-writing conventions of the time and Paul's focus on theological arguments rather than biography.

Ultimately, Ehrman accuses many mythicists of motivated reasoning—driven by a desire to undermine religion rather than uncover historical truth.

Scholarly Reception and Controversy

The book received mixed reactions. Many mainstream historians and scholars praised Ehrman for tackling a fringe theory with scholarly diligence. Others, particularly secular and atheist communities, criticized him for what they perceived as giving too much ground to religious tradition.

Some mythicist authors accused Ehrman of misrepresenting their views or ignoring parts of their work. In response, Ehrman engaged in public debates and clarified his arguments in blog posts and interviews.

Despite the pushback, most academic scholars—Christian, atheist, or otherwise—support Ehrman’s basic claim: Jesus of Nazareth, the man, did exist, even if the miraculous stories about him do not hold up to historical scrutiny.

Conclusion: A Measured Defense of History

Did Jesus Exist? is not a defense of Christianity, nor an argument for faith. Ehrman remains personally agnostic and often critiques the reliability of the New Testament as a theological document. What the book does offer is a clear, compelling case for the historical existence of Jesus, grounded in standard tools of historical investigation.

In a time when misinformation and sensational claims spread easily, Ehrman’s work serves as a reminder that not all skepticism is scholarly. By affirming Jesus’ historicity while rejecting the supernatural elements of his story, Ehrman provides a nuanced middle ground—rooted in evidence, not ideology.

For readers interested in the origins of Christianity, biblical scholarship, or the historical method, Did Jesus Exist? remains an essential and thought-provoking read.

James D. Tabor: Early Christianity Was NOTHING Like You Were Taught!

🔍 Who Is James D. Tabor?

James Daniel Tabor is a distinguished biblical scholar with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He served as Professor of Religious Studies at UNC–Charlotte, specializing in Early Christianity, Pauline theology, Second Temple Judaism, and Christian origins reddit.com+12reddit.com+12litark.com+12. Beyond academic publications, he’s an engaging public intellectual—frequently interviewed by Time, Newsweek, NYT, and featured on PBS, History Channel, Discovery, and more centuryone.com.

---

📘 Core Books Challenging Conventional Christian History

The Jesus Dynasty (2006)

• Tabor argues Jesus was an apocalyptic Davidic messiah, part of a dynastic movement aiming to restore Judean sovereignty. His family—especially brother James the Just—led the movement after Jesus’s death reddit.com+3jamestabor.com+3reddit.com+3.

• James remained the head of a Jerusalem-based, Torah-observant community until his death (~62 CE), preserving Jesus’s original message distinct from Paul’s theology simonandschuster.com.au+15jamestabor.com+15bookey.app+15.

• The book introduces controversial themes: Jesus’s unknown biological father, possible connections to the Talpiot family tomb, and parallels with Roman-era traditions en.wikipedia.org+1reddit.com+1.

Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (2012)

• Tabor emphasizes Paul’s transformative role: “Paul never met Jesus,” yet created a theology that redefined Christianity, making it a Gentile, spiritual movement rather than a Jewish sect en.wikipedia.org+8washparkprophet.blogspot.com+8allbookstores.com+8.

• He claims Paul’s epistles show a stark contrast between Pauline theology and the earlier Jewish‑Christian movement led by James, Peter, and John—which remained Torah-centered and messianic en.wikipedia.org+15jamestabor.com+15centuryone.com+15.

• According to Tabor, modern mainstream Christianity stems more from Paul than from Jesus’s original followers en.wikipedia.org+15washparkprophet.blogspot.com+15goodreads.com+15.

---

🧠 Key Thesis: Two Rival Christianities

Tabor paints a dramatic picture of early Christianity:

1. Pre‑Pauline Christianity

   • Centered in Jerusalem, led by James (Jesus's brother), remarried to his Jewish identity.

   • Jesus seen as a human messianic figure, not divine in later theological terms.

   • Emphasized imminent Kingdom of God, Torah observance, and familial succession.

2. Pauline Christianity

   • Founded by Paul, evolved independently from Jesus’s circle.

   • Introduced a spiritual, universalized Jesus-as-God theology for Gentile converts.

   • Paul’s controversy with James and his emphasis on salvation by faith, not works allbookstores.com+1bookey.app+1.

Tabor states: “The message of Paul... and the message of the historical Jesus and his earliest followers … were sharply opposed … with little in common beyond the name Jesus” litark.com+1washparkprophet.blogspot.com+1.

---

🕵️‍♂️ Tabor’s Evidence and Methods

Close Textual Readings

• He reinterprets Mark’s gospel and New Testament letters to argue Jesus’s brothers were believers, and that James was designated leader—contrary to typical readings .

• Treats John 7:5’s statement that “Jesus’s brothers did not believe in him” as a later interpolation downplaying their involvement jamestabor.com+1ntscholarship.wordpress.com+1.

Historical Context

• Uses Galatians, Acts, and Paul’s epistles to date his entrance into Christianity ~20 years post-Jesus—suggesting he formalized doctrines after the original movement had its own identity washparkprophet.blogspot.com+14ru.scribd.com+14en.wikipedia.org+14.

Archaeology

• Co-leads the Talpiot Tomb excavations (with Jacobovici), speculating it could be Jesus’s family tomb—a claim widely contested jamestabor.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2reddit.com+2.

---

🏆 Scholarly Recognition vs. Criticism

Support and Respect

• Fellow scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) have praised Tabor’s insight and respected scholarly standing, featuring him as a guest on notable platforms reddit.com+15reddit.com+15reddit.com+15.

• His method—close textual criticism combined with historical context—earned acclaim in Publishers Weekly and other academic reviews .

Academic Critique

• Critics argue Tabor’s interpretations rely on speculative leaps and loose evidence, going beyond what can be demonstrated—especially with the Talpiot Tomb .

• The core thesis—that Pauline Christianity diverged radically from Jesus’s original movement—is debatable: many scholars see more continuity, not separation .

---

🎓 Scholarly Reception in Brief

• Mixed reviews on The Jesus Dynasty: praised as a bold reconstruction, but faulted for insufficient grounding in solid historical evidence reddit.com+12en.wikipedia.org+12en.wikipedia.org+12.

• Paul and Jesus is considered a breakthrough, clarifying Paul’s unique role—but still debated over emphasis .

• Overall, Tabor is viewed as respected yet controversial, pushing important questions despite critique .

---

🔄 Broader Impact and Legacy

• Tabor reinvigorated academic and public debates on the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity, emphasizing Jewish Christianity’s viability into the 2nd–3rd centuries through figures like the Ebionites and James’s Jerusalem sect en.wikipedia.org.

• He continues producing scholarship—including the Original Bible Project—that questions standard gospel arrangements and translations en.wikipedia.org.

• His conclusions resonate in popular culture, sermons, podcasts, and documentaries, prompting reexamination of early Christianity’s roots.

---

✍️ Was Early Christianity ‘Nothing Like You Were Taught’?

Tabor’s thesis compels us to reevaluate standard narratives:

• Jesus as fully Jewish, apocalyptic messiah championing Torah, not the divine Son of God preached by many modern churches.

• James, not Peter or Paul, led the first movement—a Jewish movement—until the Damascus-led Pauline wave eclipsed it.

• Paul redefined Christianity, making it universal and spiritual, downplaying Jewish practice—a transformation Tabor terms a “creation” of a new religion reddit.com+1bookey.app+1.

---

✅ Final Thoughts

James Tabor remains a courageous and scholarly voice challenging conventional Christian origin stories. His narrative—of ancient rivalry between Torah‑observant, Jesus‑family‑led Judaism and Pauline Gentile‑focused theology—reshapes how we think about Christian foundations.

But his theories are not universally accepted, depending as they do on speculative leaps and controversial interpretations. As with any paradigm-shifting scholarship, scrutiny, dialogue, and new evidence will decide what endures in the broader academic story.

---

Further Reading & Resources

Title	Focus
The Jesus Dynasty (2006)	Original Jesus movement led by James
Paul and Jesus (2012)	How Paul shaped Christian theology
Tabor’s blog & Talpiot excavations coverage	Ongoing scholarly updates
Works by McGrath, Fredriksen, Ehrman	For counterpoint and broader context

---

Conclusion: Tabor passionately argues that early Christianity was radically different from the faith many people learn—more Jewish, dynastic, and reformist than divine and universal. Whether you find his evidence conclusive or speculative, his work opens doors to a deeper, more nuanced exploration of Christianity’s true beginnings.