Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Rebuttal on “Response on the topic “Is Jesus God because he said I am Alpha and Omega”: Quennel Gale runs away from the argument

 

By Ahmed Eldin

 

 

This paper will deal with the desperate amateur missionary on the topic “Is Jesus God because he said I am Alpha and Omega”. Please read his pathetic response to me (http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.html ) and then mine.

 

Gale the kid writes:

 

“Ahmed Eldin finally took the time to respond to my initial article on “Jesus being God because of the alpha and Omega statements”. Needless to say he virtually skips my entire article, including the refutation of various points made in reference to Revelation, and proceeds to jump to the Melchiz’edek part at the very end! I find “Answering-Christianity.com” a very amusing website because they always embellish how their authors presented rebuttals to various articles

 

Response:

 

The one who skips whole articles and just scratch the surface is you Gale and here is the proof. Compare my response to him (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Kyrios_rebuttal.htm ) and then read his response to me here (http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html ) and see for your self how he stops responding on my first two responses where my article contains 10 detail responses for his initial article! Indeed Gale he is a clown. Now concerning my “skip” this man obvious doesn’t concentrate on what he reads because I made it crystal clear in the beginning of my response that I will only deal with what he said about MY argument NOT what he said about Zaataris argument. Here is the quote:

 

Personally, I will respond only according what he said about my argument” (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.htm ) it seems that this man has a serious problem.  

 

Qunnel Gale after making some total irrelevant claims and statements concerning the topic of discussion (Is Jesus God because he said I am alpha and omega) he finally finds the courage to address me by saying (not his words but from Robertson) 

 

“As A.T. Robertson clearly says, this phrase isn’t saying that Mel had no Father or no Mother:

 

Without father, without mother, without genealogy (apatwr, amhtwr, agenealoghto߼/B>). Alliteration like Romans 1:30, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and MEAING SIMPLY "DEVOID OF ANY GENEOLOGY."

 

Response:

 

Did you notice the sickness? The verse is Crystal Clear that Mel has no father and no mother!

 

3. Without father, without mother, without descent,(Hebrews 7:3)

 

It is obvious that Gale is desperate; he consults an interpretation that has nothing to do with the text! Amazing situation. On one hand we have a text from Hebrews that says that Mel has no father no mother no descends and yet Gale and Robertson deny that! Please have a look on the text and then to the above supposed interpretation and see for your self the twist.

  

 

 

Gale said:

 

Mr. Eldin said nothing about Jesus and Mel’s common purpose for preaching. The whole reason he used this verse was to prove that Mel was superior to Jesus:

 

Because his superiority from Jesus is not only for his eternal existence but also because he does not have a mother, Jesus had a mother, and he does not have a descent, Jesus had descents (two genealogies according to the gospels). So when Christians try to prove the divinity of Jesus by the statement “Iam Alpha and Omega” I advise them to better look the statement of Melchisedec which is much more superior than Jesus. However, Christians do not support that Melchisedec is God.

 

There was nothing in his argument indicating any relationship to preaching in reference to “the son of God” in verse 3. Mr. Eldin invented this explanation because he couldn’t adequately explain how someone could be superior to the person they are a shadow of. In other words, how could Mel be greater than Jesus when he is only a copy of Christ? After all, imitation is never greater than the object being imitated. As we clearly saw in this passage, Mel was an imitation of Jesus. Yet it gets worse for Mr. Eldin because he further embarrasses himself:

                                                                                                                        

Response:

 

Mel is superior than Jesus because simple as I proved beyond a doubt, even if the pathetic meaning of Robertson and Gale wants to contradict it, that Mel has no mother, Jesus had a mother, Mel had no Genealogy Jesus had! Simple, simple, simple. If Gale and Robertson have any objection then let it be against their unholy book, not me. Despite the fact of Mel superiority over Jesus, this does not prevent to have only ONE purpose and that is the preaching as the verse state:

 

“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3

 

This is the only similarity, the priesthood, which is very clear from the verse. Personally I took it for granted and I didn’t mention it. But also I didn’t know that I had to rebut an ignorant of the Christian theology like Gale that every time I have to utter things that are taken for granted. The problem of Gale is that he cannot understand that Mel is superior to Jesus from the description of Paul, and he was a copy and was made like unto the son only as priest.

 

Gale said:

 

A.T. Robertson already showed us the evidence from the Greek text! The Greek word “apwmoiwmeno,” which is the perfect passive participle of “apomoiow,” literally means in this verse “A FACSIMILE OR COPY” of something that is original! Hence, Mel couldn’t be superior to Jesus for he is only a mere copy! And Mel definitely couldn’t be added into any Godhead nor does the Bible imply that his priesthood is forever:

 

but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. Continually (eiߠto dihneke߼/B>). Old phrase (for the continuity) like eiߠton aiwna, in N.T. only in Hebrews (Romans 7:3; Romans 10:1,14,21).  (Source)

 

Again the NT Greek text shows that Jesus’ priesthood is continuous unlike Mel, since the latter doesn’t abide forever as priesthood. He merely foreshadows the One that does, the Lord Jesus.

 

So my questions to Mr. Eldin are:

 

  1. How can Mel be superior to Jesus when his priesthood isn’t continuous like Christ’s?
  2. Where do you come up with this idea of Mel being God when the author of Hebrews is NOT saying that Mel is identical to God or Christ, both of whom are said to be eternal and abiding forever according to Hebrews, when Mel was made “like the Son of God”?
  3. How can you add Mel to the Trinity when he is only a shadow, not the reality, that reflects the eternal nature and priesthood of Christ?
  4. Finally, how can you allege that I supplied no evidence when I quoted A.T. Robertson who showed from the very words of the text itself that Mel was meant to be a mere a copy pointing to Christ who is the reality?

  

 

Response:

 

Yes, a copy and was made like unto the Son only for priesthood, but according to the statement of Paul:

 

“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3

 

Jesus was inferior because he had a mother, and descent.

 

 

Let us address now his stupid questions:

  1. Mel can be superior simply because he has no mother or descent; Jesus your “god” had all these. And if he was a copy as you support then his priesthood is same like Jesus, don’t forget that the verse states; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually this is for Mel not Jesus. Gale you just expose your ignorance and your immaturity on Christianity. 
  2. It doesn’t matter if he is identical or not, you claim that he is a copy and as a copy he shares his attributes, therefore he shares his Deity therefore his God, this the reason why I said that you invented a new formula for the stupid theory of trinity. By the way isn’t you Christians that say that Jesus is not the Father but SHARES his nature? Well in other words you claim a copy of the Father and this copy is Jesus. The same apply for Mel, and don’t forget that all these is yours hypothesis not mine.
  3. Already answered above. You clamed that Mel reflect Jesus nature? The same you say about Jesus with the father, but this didn’t stopped you Christians to make him a God, why not also Mel that reflects the nature of Jesus if he is a copy? Again don’t forget that Mel is superior according to the author of Hebrews no matter what your Robertson or you say is crystal clear from the verse: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3
  4. Robertson is not the evidence. Simply because I answered also to the nonsense of Robertson. And Robertson meaning has nothing to do with the text. He claimed and you clamed that Mel copy of Jesus therefore shares his nature, Jesus is God (according to you) therefore Mel is God as a copy.

 

 

Gale said:

 

How can Jesus be a God when he is not clean and pure and he is a worm( indicating his inferiority to God)

 

4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

6. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

(Job 25:4-6)

 

Are you still insist that Jesus is God ?

 

Gale please bring some real arguments and don’t waste my time.

 

Response:

 

This is an easy question to answer. First off, this isn’t God saying this at all; let us read who actually made this assertion:

 

Then Bildad the Shuhite replied: "Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. Can his forces be numbered? Upon whom does his light not rise? How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot— a son of man, who is only a worm!" Job 25:1-6

 

 

This is Bildad, not God saying this! Mr. Eldin took this as a refutation of Jesus’ Deity!? Mr. Eldin fails to realize that not everything that Bildad said was approved by God:

 

“After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.’” Job 42:7-8

 

Response:

 

Indeed this clown is out of his mind, he has no idea of what he speaks. Note the twisting and the deception of this man.

 

God was angry with Eliphaz the Temanite not with Bildad, Gale failed to make even this distinction! Check again Gale:

 

“After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite

 

Also even (for the sake of the argument) if God was angry with Bildad this does not mean that his angry because he said the specific statement:

 

 

4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

6. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

(Job 25:4-6)

 

But this is not case at all. God was angry with Eliphaz not with Bildad, and even if he was with Bildad we have no evidences that his statement is invalid in the sight of the Biblical God, therefore it’s valid and indicate that Jesus is a worm and does not worth anything in the sight of God. Therefore Gale’s whole argument destroyed!

 

Gale said:

 

Moreover, even though God agrees that man is born sinful and corrupt, and therefore is impure in his sight, he does explain how a person can be pure in his holy sight:

“But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So THE HOLY ONE TO BE BORN will be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:30-35

 

A person born of a woman can be pure in God’s sight provided that the individual in question is conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, since this kind of conception would prevent the child from being tainted with original sin. And since Jesus is the only Person born of a virgin by the power of God’s pure Spirit he is the only human being that was born from a woman who was completely pure and holy in God’s sight:  

 

Response:

 

Gale over and over again plays with the verses and twists the words. He says that the only way for a person to be pure is that the individual in question is conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. But this not the case at all. The verse never mentions anywhere that a person must be born from a virgin, again this is the doctrine of Gale. The only thing that the verse says is that Jesus will be holy because he will be conceived from the Holy Spirit, that’s all. Read again for your own:

 

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So THE HOLY ONE TO BE BORN will be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:30-35

The King James Version support my argument further:

And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Ghost shall come on you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.

There is nothing unique if Jesus will be born by the Holy Ghost because others have been born in a similar way:

36. And, behold, your cousin Elisabeth, she has also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37. For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1: 36-38

It is obvious why Gale afraid to post the other verses that come after Luke 1:35, because it shows that Elizabeth is a barren woman and she will conceive a child. The author of Luke put it under the same category of the birth of Jesus, as a miracle. The child of Elizabeth also conceived by the Holy Spirit;

13. But the angel said to him, Fear not, Zacharias: for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elisabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.

14. And you shall have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Luke 1:13-15

Like Jesus!

Even Zachariah was filled with Holy Ghost:

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Luke 1:67

Also we have many holy figures from the Bible even nations!

And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.  These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel. Exodus 19: 6

And you shall be holy men to me: neither shall you eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. Exodus 22:31

Therefore it’s no big deal that Jesus is Holy.

   

Gale said:

And here is God’s own assessment of his beloved Son:

“At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’” Mark 1:9-11

 

"BUT OF THE SON he (God) says, 'THY THRONE O GOD, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; THEREFORE GOD, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.'" Hebrews 1:8-9 RSV

   

Response:

Concerning Mark 1:9-11 there is nothing unique with Jesus being called the Son, others have been called Sons of God ( Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 2:7) Some people even called GODS! (Psalms 82:6)

The verse Hebrews 1:8-9 is NOT the words of God or Jesus. It is the words of Paul. This amateur missionary has a bad habit of repeating himself. Anyway, once again he exposed and totally destroyed by the Grace of Allah.

       

     

 
   

 

Rebuttals and Exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.

Back to brother Ahmed Eldin's section.

 


Send your comments.
 

Back to Main Page.