Malfuzat - Volume IV — Page 202
202 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did arise for him to have people believe in his divinity, he responded in a manner which, as if, served as a denial that any of these prophecies were applicable to him. The actions and statements that are attributed to Jesus as in the Gospel also support what I have said, because it is necessary for there to be no contradiction in the actions and words of God, whereas clear contradiction exists in the Gospel accounts. For example, the Messiah says that no one knows about the hour except the Father. Now what a strange thing indeed. If the being of both Father and Son is one and the same, considering this statement of the Messiah, would the Persian proverb not apply that ‘weak of memory is the liar’? For on the one hand, we have the claim that Jesus is God, and on the other hand we have a denial of divine attributes. As for the question that the Messiah is referred to as the Son in the Gospel, need I say that the Gospel was altered and interpolated? It is not at all hidden from those who read the Bible how widely the term ‘son’ is used. It is written about Israel that ‘Israel is My son, even My firstborn. ’ Now what could be greater than this? Then, we also find evidence in the Bible for the ‘daughters’ of God. In fact, above all else, even the word ‘God’ has been used, where it is said ‘you are gods. ’ What greater proof can there be? Now every just and intelligent person can understand that if the word ‘son’ had not been so general in usage, this would have established a distinction. However, this word is general and even Adam as is included in the line of sons and Israel has been referred to as the first - born. The abundant use of this term demonstrates that it is employed to refer to the holy and pious due to the positive light in which they are seen. Now until the distinct application of this term to the Messiah is not explained as to why he should not be grouped among all the other righteous people who enjoy ‘sonship’, the usage of this word for the Messiah cannot prove or establish anything. For when this word is used as a general, national expression, no special definition of the word can be applicable to the Messiah. I could accept that this word evi - denced the godship, sonship or divinity of Christ if the same word had not been used for others. I honestly say, with fear of God, that for a person who possesses a pure heart and an honest conscience, this argument cannot hold any significance in their eyes. Surely, they cannot give any value to these words unless it is demonstrated with proof that these words have not been used for any other individual, or until it is proven that although these words have been used for other individuals, the Messiah is unique and distinct from others due to such and such solid reasons. p. 468