Truth About the Split — Page 39
39 consistently with the same rule he ought to interpret his quotation from the New Testament in the sense that the previous Ambiya ’ were really Divine, whereas to Jesus had been granted merely the name of God, or in the alternative, to accept the Christian view that the old Prophets merely bore the name of God whereas Jesus was really Divine. In view of the above facts, let me now appeal to the "good sense and moral courage" of the Maulawi Sahib to consider and decide whether the verses quoted by him from the New Testament, point to his party or to mine as counter-part of the misguided followers of Jesus as. The Christians, notwithstanding the explanation of Jesus as , that he was 'god' in the sense in which the previous Prophets were 'gods', persisted in asserting that the word carried one sense when applied to the Prophets and another when used in reference to Jesus as. So the author of The Split and his party, notwithstanding the clear statement of the Promised Messiah as that he was a Nabi in the same sense in which the previous, Prophets bore that title (as may well be seen from the quotations from his writing given above), would still persist in saying that the older Prophets were Ambiya ’ in one sense and the Promised Messiah as a Nabi in another sense. The difference between the author of The Split and his followers and the misguided followers of Jesus as lies