The Two Faces of Islam

Many years ago, Steve Emerson produced a documentary for PBS. The video was titled “Jihad in America.” Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques where eager young Muslims were being actively recruited for jihad against the U.S.

It showed Muslim leaders making wicked statements about bringing America to its knees through terrorism. One of them said:

Blood must flow, there must be widows [and] orphans. Hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah’s religion stands on its feet.”

As I type this, this religion of Allah is stands menacingly over the corpses of thousands of Christians and remains of burnt church buildings in Northern Nigeria, Central Africa, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and several other nations.

Blood has flowed. Widows and orphans have multiplied. Many have become sex slaves in the Muslim markets, while others are still nowhere to be found – and Allah is pleased.

Many modern Muslims have run all over the social space in desperation, quoting some “peaceful” verses from their Quran and trying hard to distance Islam from the insidious actions of Muslim terrorists all across the globe. But such efforts are futile.

Our facts about Islam are from its primary sources – the Quran, as well as Hadiths and biographies of Muhammad written by Islamic scholars. Muslims can only play up their ‘Islam is peace’ card by writing another Quran or scraping their Hadiths.

There were two phases of Muhammad’s mission – the Meccan and Medinan. There is a difference between the two which explains why Islam has “two faces” from one geographical location to another.

1. The Meccan phase: tolerance and peace when a minority

In Mecca, Muhammad had only a handful of followers. Majority of the Meccans were Pagans, Jews, Christians and Sabians, and they weren’t interested in Muhammad’s Islam. They laughed at his absurd claims and left him to his rants.

For a period of 10 years, he had just 100 followers. During this time, the Quranic verses he recited (supposedly from Allah) were tolerant and conciliatory towards the infidels:

Be patient with what they say” (Sura 73:10)

We know what the infidels say but you are not to compel them” (Sura 50:45)

If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel man against their will to believe?” (Sura 49:11)

Lord, these are people who do not believe, ‘Bear with them and wish them peace. In the end, they shall know their folly” (Sura 43:88).

There was no call to war in Mecca because the Muslims were a minority and having been raised in a religiously heterogeneous culture, didn’t see the need to impose their ways of worship on others.

2. The Medinan phase: Offensive war when non-Muslims are outnumbered.

Muhammad left Mecca alleging that the infidels were scheming to kill him. This is very unlikely for reasons already stated. He finally resided in Medina. There, he gained more followers and was able to raise a large army to spread his novel religion. Then his Quranic recitations changed to violence and force:

“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (persecution) is worse than killing…” (Sura 2:191)

Strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour” (Sura 25:52)

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war...” (Sura 9:5)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah…nor acknowledge the religion of truth from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay compensation [jizya] with willing submission…” (Sura 9:29)

The theological implication of these conflicting phases is this: the former (Meccan) verses of peace have been replaced or abrogated by the later (Medinan) verses.

The final commands of war takes priority over the initial verses of peace. According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Sura 9:5, 25

“These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations … This honourable Ayah [9:5] was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, ‘it abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater. Every treaty and every term’.” (Vol. 4, pp. 375-357).

Some Muslims rationalise Muhammad’s bloody wars by alleging that the pagans persecuted him when he was in Mecca, so he had no choice but to raid, kill and rape them.

But when one examines even biased Muslim records, it’s clear that Muhammad was the aggressor. He was the one who first started attacking and insulting the pagans and their deities, and they begged him to stop.

“When he [preached Islam to his tribesmen], they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway … until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him…”

The Meccan leaders reported this to his uncle Abu Talib saying: “…Your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us our forefathers were misguided … Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him” (The History of Al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, Montgomery W. Watt and M. V. McDonald, 1988, Vol. VI, 93-95)

The Arabs prior to Muhammad lived together with Jews, Christians and were not bothered with whatever god Muhammad wanted to worship. All they asked for was for him to stop insulting their deities and ancestors.

Even when Muhammad persisted in his mockeries, they neither assassinated him nor his followers. Whereas Muhammad killed anyone who spoke against him or his religion when he attained military might.

Another implication of these two phases is that, it lays down a pattern of behaviour for Muslims for all time (After all Muhammad is their “perfect example” Sura 33:21).

When Muslims are a minority in a place, they preach peace and tolerance and clamour for rights they can’t give non-Muslims in an Islamic state. But once they gain an upper hand, they reveal the second face of Islam – wage war and impose Islam with force.

Ninth century Islamic scholar, Abu Tirmidhi declares:

“In normal conditions, when Muslims are in power and they are not living as a minority, and they are not under any compulsion or subjugation, it is an order for Muslims that they should not give such leeway to the non-Muslims and they should not greet them first nor yield the way for them” (Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, complied by Imam Hafiz, 2007, Vol. 3:19).

This “two faced” principle is also practically applied in Islamic deception or taqiyya/kitman.

Sura 3:28 says: “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends…whose doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye guard yourselves against them taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of himself…”

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn comments that “unless you protect yourselves against them as a safe-guard (taqatan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts. This was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it.”

That is to say, a Muslim is theologically permitted to lie and deceive non-Muslims, particularly when they are a minority. Ibn Kathir explains this verse too saying:

“In this case believers are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers (outwardly) but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them ‘ …The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection…”

So, Islamic jihad actually stands on two legs – deception and violence. The first makes way for the second.

Part of the taqiyya tricks Muslims love to play is when they selectively quote their Quran to try to portray Islam as a peaceful religion. They love to quote places like:

a) Sura 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion…

Islamic scholars have given different explanations about the context of this verse, but they all agree that it has been abrogated or replaced.

Some of them explain that ir applies to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who can choose between the options of conversion to Islam and jizya in an Islamic state.

That passage was recited when the Jewish women of Ansari who had vowed to convert their sons to Judaism were among the Bani Nadir Jewish tribe expelled from Medina by Muslim warriors and Muhammad’s opinion was sought.

The Tafsir of Al-Qurtubi however, says: “‘No compulsion’ was abrogated and he [Muhammad] was commanded to fight against the People of the Book in Surat at-Tawba” (Classical Commentary of the Holy Quran, 660).

b) Sura 60:8 “God forbids you not with regard to those fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them…

First of all, the Meccans didn’t actually drive out the Muslims, it was Muhammad himself who demanded they migrate with him.

Second, the term “fight you” in Islam also refers to those who criticize or verbally attack Muhammad or Islam. This can be seen from verse 2 which says:

If they come on you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve.”

Sura 9:12 too says “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant and attack your religion with disapproval or criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish- pagans of Makkah)…

Hence, to insult or criticize Muhammad or Islam (even by cartoons) is the same as “waging war against Islam” and the penalty of that is ostensibly death. This is how the cult of peace works. An Islamic scholar admits:

“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and the likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g propaganda] or acts [like spying or assisting in warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed…” (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad, 28).

c) Sura 8:61 “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace…

Tafsir ibn Abbas says: “This [verse] has been abrogated by the ‘sword verse’ [Sura 9:5]”.

Islamic scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Azzam also says: “Jihad and the rifle alone. No negotiation, no conferences and no dialogues” because “if the fighting stops, the disbelievers will dominate and fitnah, which is Shirk (polytheism) will spread” (Join the Caravan, pp. 9, 20).

Another common Quranic verse quoted is Sura 5:32 which says killing one man is the same as killing the whole of mankind. That has been addressed here.

Until people understand that Islam has two faces, they will keep embracing its mild face where it’s still a minority as its true form, not realizing that it has a beastly face, a dark side, which we now see daily in many parts of the world and which its dawagandists cannot successfully hide.

Unmasking the Queen of Heaven


According to the Catholic catechism, “God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth” and she “is to be praised with special devotion” (pp. 966, 971). In essence, Mary is not on the same footing with humans.

Catholics believe Mary is the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven and the Seat of Wisdom. I once asked a Catholic friend, “If Mary is the Queen of Heaven, who is the King of heaven?” He answered “God.” I then told him that the idea of God having a wife is totally blasphemous.

The Bible is clear that Mary, the mother of Jesus is not the queen of heaven. Jesus is the “King of kings” (Rev. 17:4) and there is no queen ruling with Him.

There is not a single Bible verse that speaks of Mary as queen of heaven. Yet modern Catholic apologists have sweated to maintain this delusion with “proof texts” like:

a) Revelation 12:1-6

They claim that Mary is the “sun-clothed woman” mentioned in this passage. But when you look at the whole of Scripture and not an isolated text you will see that the “sun-clothed woman” represents the nation of Israel and not Mary.

In Isaiah 26:17-18 Israel is described: “As a woman with child is in pain and cries out in her pangs, when she draws near to the time of her delivery, so have we [Israel] been in your sight O LORD. We have been with child, we have been in pain...”

The woman in Revelation 12 experienced childbirth pains which is one of the results of original sin (Gen. 3:16), thus if this is the Catholic Mary, then this disproves the “Immaculate Conception” dogma. Catholics can’t have it both ways.

The sun, moon and 12 stars around the woman also identify Israel.

Then he [Joseph] dreamed another dream … this time the sun, moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me” (Gen. 37:9, 10).

Jacob immediately knew what the dream meant, that the stars represents the 12 tribes of Israel. Remember that the book of Revelation is full of symbols which shouldn’t be taken literally.

Revelation 12:6 says the woman fled into the wilderness just as Scripture says that the nation of Israel would go through travail in the last days and they will “flee to the mountains” (Mt. 24:16, Mk. 13:8, Isa. 66:7-8). According to Bible scholars:

“The woman’s flight into the wilderness also reveals the end-time exodus or restoration when Israel would return in faith to the Lord and again be protected and nourished by him in the wilderness (Isa. 32:5, 35:1, 40:3, 41:18, 43:19-20, 51:3, Jer. 31:2, Ezek. 34:25, Hos. 2:14)” (G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough, Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament, 2007, 1124).

The dragon that stood before the woman represents Satan who is incensed against the nation of Israel and her seed (Dan. 7:21, 8:9, 11:40-45, Joel 3). Nothing here proves Mary is the Queen of heaven.

b). 1 Kings 2:19

“…And the king rose to meet her [Bathsheba], and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat at his right hand

Catholics claim that heaven operates based on the ‘earthly Davidic kingdom’, so as Solomon had his mother at his right hand, Jesus now has Mary at His right hand. Why God would pattern Heaven according to an earthly political system is not explained.

The idea of Christ having a heavenly mother queen as a co-ruler is not once taught in Scripture.

The Bible says “And he [God] hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22).

The one-time action of Solomon having a queen mother on his side was not customary. It only occurred in 3 other instances e.g in the case of Maachah the mother of Asa who temporarily ruled with 16 year old king Asa (1Kings 15:12-13) and was later dethroned for idolatry; Hephzibah who ruled with her son Manasseh at 12 years of age (2Kings 21:1) who apparently joined him in his satanism, and Athaliah, a queen mother who killed her own grandsons (2Kings 11:1, 16).

From these examples, there was only a “queen mother ruler” because the kings were very young (and it wasn’t a good arrangement after all).

In Solomon’s case, he was married before he became king, so he already had his queen with him – not his mother. Do we expect Solomon to have his mother sit on the floor at her visit?

Solomon didn’t even honour his mother’s request in the passage, so I fail to see how this supports the Catholic imagery of a great mother and a wimpish son.

Others desperately appeal to Ephesians  2:6 and Revelation 1:6 which speak of Believers seated “together [with Christ] in heavenly places” and being made “kings and priests.” This refers to the spiritual authority of Believers.

If there is a queen who shares Christ’s throne it would be His bride (the church), yet the church is never referred to as the queen of heaven.

Until the day Catholics start praying to Christians with phrases like “Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!” they should discard this spoof text. It’s bad enough to worship a goddess under a “Christian” veneer, it’s evil to twist God’s word to try support it.

The only “queen of heaven” mentioned in Scripture is an ancient pagan goddess worshipped many centuries before Mary was born. Modern Catholic apologists may try to distance their “Mary” from the old pagan goddess, but they are just preaching to the choir.

Catholic priest Andrew Greenley admits:

“Mary is one of the most powerful religious symbols in the history of the Western world … The Mary symbol links Christianity [rather Roman Catholicism] directly to the ancient religions of mother goddesses” (The Making of Popes, New York, 1979, 227).

Some Catholics actually boast that Mary has taken the place of “Maia, the nymph of Greek mythology, who was the mother of Hermes by Zeus, the sky god.” The month of May was named after Maia, who was known as “the queen of May … [and] the Jesuit effort to turn the Queen of May into the Virgin Mary was successful…” (The Catholic Sun, May 26, 1993)

Valerie Abrahamson points out that:

“Even as Mary was called Queen of Heaven and sometimes depicted surrounded by the zodiac and other symbols, so too were the deities Isis, Magna Mater, and Artemis. Such parallels show that Mary’s cult had roots in the cults of the female deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon” (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce Metzger, Michael Coogan, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993, 500).

The fact that no particular attention was paid to Mary the mother of Jesus for at least five centuries of church history and the archetype that later emerged, although using her name, radically differs from what the Bible says about her, doesn’t take much effort to deduce that as pagan concepts merged with Roman Catholicism, their “Mary” was gradually modelled after the old pagan goddesses.

Some of the titles, roles and emblems of the ancient Queen of Heaven were transferred to “Mary” over the centuries.

Reading Jeremiah 44:1-26, we can see that the ancient Jews “which dwell in the land of Egypt” (vs. 1) also succumbed into the worship of the Queen of Heaven (Isis or Hathor) and the Bible is clear that all pagan deities are demons (Dt. 32:16-17, Ps. 106:36-38, 1Cor. 10:19-21). we can note some facts about this Queen of heaven.

I. Her worship was a great evil and abomination before God (vs. 4, 7). God’s viewpoint has not changed.

Revelation 5:3-5 says, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ .But there was no one, in heaven or on the earth or under the earth, who was able to open the scroll and read it … Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed, and so he will open the scroll and its seven seals.”

Any entity – no matter how “heavenly” – that tries to replace this central position that Christ has in heaven and on earth, is straight from the pit of hell.

II. Her worship had much appeal to women. Prophet Jeremiah directly addressed “their wives … all the women that stood … and to the women” (vv. 15-20).

There is a strong link between feminism and her worship. It’s no coincidence that the Catholic Marian apparitions are more to female visionaries.

III. Her worship involves burning of incense, cakes (or wafers) and drink offerings (v. 19).

It’s no accident that some apparitions of the Catholic ‘Mary’ have links with the communion host. In modern Wiccan/Neo pagan cults, cakes and wine are offered to their great goddess.

IV. Her worshippers are stubborn and arrogant (v. 17). They told the prophet brazenly: “We will certainly do everything we said we would.”

This is one of the hallmarks of religions controlled by this demonic deity. It indicates the level of mind control that she wields over her servants. This is why her followers disregard the Bible to worship her.

V. She seems to be associated with wealth, peace/war and fertility (v. 18).

This can be seen by the backlash the Jews complained of when they forsook her. They lost their possessions, experienced wars and famine. It was God’s judgement on their rebellion.

Today, the key messages that the queen of heaven teaches Rome is that she will usher in world peace.

At her apparition at Medjugorje in the early 80s, she said: “Dear children, today I invite you to peace. I come here as the Queen of peace and I desire to enrich you with my Motherly peace.”

But this region has witnessed more massacres since this vision. There is only one Prince of Peace and until He returns to reign, there can be no peace in the world.

VI. She desperately seeks the worship of God’s people (vv. 22-23). This is why you will find that the so-called “Marian” apparitions (and dogmas) totally replace Jesus with Mary.

Her fifth promise to “St” Dominic reads: “The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.” This is pure goddess worship.

VII. The Queen of Heaven is the mistress of Witchcraft and the occult.

The Dictionary of Symbols described Isis (one of her names) for instance, as “a powerful sorceress, the Great Enchantress, the Mistress of Magic, the speaker of spells.”

Aleister Crowley, the 20th century famous Satanist “channelled” the Queen of Heaven saying:

I am the Queen of the heavenly ones, of the Gods, and of the Goddessesunited in one form. I am She who was, who is, and will be; my form is one … yet I am nameless in the deep … Some call me Mother of the Gods … others yet again Isis, veiled mother of Mystery.” (The Equinox, quoted in Fallen Angel, p. 222).

The “Queen of Heaven” is a high ranking demonic ruler in Satan’s kingdom. She specialises in imparting dreams and visions to her slaves. Occult mystic, Ab-dru-shin (Oskar Benhardt) wrote:

Certainly, there is a Queen of Heaven, Who according to earthly conceptions could also be called the Primordial Mother, and Who yet possesses the purest Virginity. She however has dwelt from all eternity in the Highest heights … Through her help, help often comes at such an accelerated speed that people [who pray to her] call it a miracle” (In the Light of Truth – The Grail Message, Vol 1, p. 50).

God calls everyone trapped in this false worship to come out and serve the Living Christ before it is too late. He alone is able to save and worthy of worship. All those who bow to this demonic queen are going into everlasting judgement which the queen herself is going into.

The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

images (2)

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus was physically raised from the dead, but was rather raised as a mighty spirit creature.

Christ Jesus…was resurrected an invisible spirit creature” (Let God be True, p. 138).

“Jehovah God evidently disposed of Jesus’ fleshy body in his own way (possibly disintegrating it into the atoms of which it was constituted). Jesus did not take back his fleshy body and thereby cancel out the ransom for which it was given…Christ…did materialize various fleshy bodies…” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 587).

The “proof texts” they use are:

a) 1 Peter 3:18  “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit”

The key word here is “made alive in the spirit.” It is used in other instances: “groaned in the spirit” (Jn. 11:33), “bound in the spirit” (Acts 20:22), “live in the spirit” (Gal. 5:26) or “I was in the spirit” (Rev. 1:10)

Not once does it mean that one is a spirit creature. Therefore, what 1 Peter 3:18 is saying can be understood from Romans 8:11 which says “…he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT…” Jesus was raised by the Spirit of God. The term “in the spirit” simply means “by the [Holy] Spirit.”

b) 1 Corinthians 15:50 “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The phrase “flesh and blood” is also used in Matthew 16:17, Galatians 1:16 and Ephesians 6:12. In each instance, it is used in a symbolic sense to refer to the natural, old or unregenerate man. The natural man (“flesh and blood”) cannot inherit the kingdom because he needs to be born again or regenerated (John 3:3-6).

In the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, it’s very clear that He rose bodily. In Luke 24:39, He told His disciples “it is I Myself,” that is, He didn’t materialize with different fleshy bodies and He admitted He wasn’t a spirit creature: “handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.”

In Matthew 28:6 and Mark 16:6, it is said “He is risen.” What was risen? Not His spirit or soul, for they didn’t die. Only His body died and the same was resurrected (Zec. 13:6; Acts 1:11).

When the disciples went to the tomb, they didn’t find His body because it was resurrected (Lk. 24:5). The angels asked them “Why seek you the living [body] among the dead [bodies]?” The disciples didn’t go to the tomb seeking to embalm a spirit creature but rather Jesus’ body – and He had risen bodily.

Granted, the disciples didn’t recognize Jesus at a point because they were kept from recognizing him until their eyes were opened (Lk. 24:16). Furthermore, Jesus had a “glorious body” – not an earthly one – which could walk through walls, and His appearance was also different (Phil. 3:21). But to then conclude that He rose as a spirit is absurd.

The Watchtower Society traps itself in a conundrum by denying Jesus’ bodily resurrection. In What Does the Bible Really Teach? they wrote:

When a person dies, he ceases to exist…The life we enjoy is like the flame of a candle. When the flame is put out, it does not go anywhere. It is simply gone” (pp 58-9).

According to this definition, when Jesus died, He simply ceased to exist. Yet in the same book they said: “God resurrected Jesus, but not as human…[He] was alive again as a mighty spirit person! Jesus was the first ever to receive this glorious type of resurrection.” (pp. 73-4).

That is not a resurrection but re-creation. To bring back someone from non-existence is not resurrection. In every instance of resurrection in Scripture, the bodies were made alive again, not the spirit or souls (1 Kings 17:17-24, 2Kings 4:18-37, 13:21, John 11, etc). It’s pure rebellion to argue that Jesus’ case is an exception.

Jesus likened Himself to Jonah who was alive in the fish (Jonah 2:1). He wasn’t “non-existent” after death. And the fact that Jesus is still referred to as “Man” in present tense after His ascension proves He rose bodily (1Tim. 2:5).

In John 2:19-22, Jesus promised to raise His body after death. A good question to ask Witnesses is: who raised Jesus from the dead? The Watchtower Society has given 3 conflicting answers to this question.

1. In their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Romans 10:9 says: “For if you publicly declare…that Jesus is Lord and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.”

In The Watchtower (June 15, 1994, 6), it was also said: “Rather he [Jesus] lay unconscious in death for three days until God resurrected him.”

2. In The Watchtower (April 15, 1978, 27), however, they quote Jesus saying: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ John adds: He was talking about the temple of his body.”

3. In The Watchtower June 15, 1966 edition (p 359), we read: “…results of Jehovah God’s spirit in operation: (1) Creation – Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30; (2) Birth of Jesus- Matthew 1:18; (3) Resurrection of Jesus – Romans 8:11…”

Since the Watchtower denies the Divine Trinity, why does it say God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit raised up Jesus? Why did they give three different answers to the same question? This is not a problem for we Bible Believing Christians who believe in the Divine Trinity. But for the Watchtower Society, this is a terrible blow against their credibility.