Rebuttal: Does “Kyrios” really imply Deity”? Silencing once more the desperate amateur Christian Quennel Gale

 

By Ahmed Eldin

 

 

 

 

The desperate Christian propagandist continues his pathetic so called “responses” to me. In this paper I am going to respond on all of his pathetic attempts and arguments to show to you and justify you why this man is desperate. My formula of answering this clown will be like the previous one, for example I want the reader to read his article and then mine because I don’t want to flood the text by quoting him. I just am going to refute him directly by answering his “responses” to me. So let us justify his immaturity.

 

First of all, as I said read his article: http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html

 

Answering and refuting his whole article:

 

Someone must tell that guy that our subject of discussion is not the Holy Quran words and interpretations, or the Prophet Muhammad (p). Our dialogue is about “Does Kyrios really imply Deity?” by analyzing the New Testament. Easily you can understand why Gale tries to hide himself by speaking about the Quran. Quran or general Islam is NOT our topic of discussion Gale, yet this amateur calls me a person “that divert attention away from the Quran”. Wake up Gale and concentrate on the topic please.

 

But let as answering this amateur missionary. Gale must realize the use of the word “Lord” in the Quran. “The actual word used in the Quran is “Rabb”. There is no proper equivalent for “Rabb” in the English language. It means the One and the Only Lord for all the Universe, its Creator, Owner, Organizer, Provider, Master, Planner, Sustainer, Cherisher, and Giver of security. Rabb is also one of the Names of Allah. We have used the word “Lord” as the nearest to Rabb. All occur nesses of “Lord” in the interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Quran actually mean Rabb and should be understood as such”. (Source: Interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Quran in the English language, a summarized version of At Tabari, Al Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al Bukhari, By Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, page 11.)

 

Therefore it cannot be compared the word “Kyrios” with the word “Rabb”. So the immaturity of this missionary who falsely appeals to the Quran and its used of the word “Lord” are silenced. Furthermore the desperate missionary says that the Prophets called Lords from the Quran or from the Islamic perspective. That man has serious problem of twisting my words. If you check my argument I said that the BIBLE REFERS THE PROPHETS AS LORDS NOT THE QURAN. It is obviously that the missionary is ignorant or he doesn’t know how to argue.

 

Continuing with his so called “response” Gale returns to the subject of discussion. Here we must remind to this missionary what the Greek word “Kyrios” really means:

 

 

Source : http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm

Also visit: http://www.whoisjesus.com/yhwh-LORD.html

 

We see from the above that the word “Kyrios” does not necessarily means Deity. He further claims that “Shamoun and I demonstrated, the NT uses the word Lord, or more specifically “Kyrios,” as a synonym for God’s covenant name YHWH. We cited references where the NT quotes an OT text which uses the name YHWH and substitutes it with “Kyrios”. We further showed how the NT writers applied to Jesus specific OT texts which speak of YHWH, proving that the NT authors were clearly calling Jesus Lord in the sense of his being YHWH.” In my turn I claim that Shamoun and Gale didn’t demonstrated anything at all, both of them and their pathetic arguments are soundly refuted:

 

Shamoun refuted here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Response_to_Sam_Shamoun_1.htm

 

After I refuted Shamoun, it was Gale turns to be exposed as his friend. He wrote two “responses” to me here: http://answer-islam.org/q_jesus_kurios.html and http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_and_Omega.html

 

Then I answered his articles: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.htm , and http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Kyrios_rebuttal.htm

 

Then he “responded” to me here http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.html and http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html , By the Grace of Allah I silencing him again in this paper and Insa Allah every time that he tries to argue against the religion of God Almighty (Islam) - he will find me on his way-(as we Greeks say) J

 

Actually the “response” of Gale is nothing more than a repeating procedure of his old articles that have been answered above. He says that: “And yet Jesus is said to have the exclusive characteristics of God, can perform the works which God alone can perform, and there are several OT references which speaks of Yahweh that are applied to him! Here are some examples to help drive home this point:”

 

Let us see these exclusive characteristics of God. Gale posts:

 

"And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working still, AND I AM WORKING.’ This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal (ison) with God." John 5:16-18

We read in Scoffield’s notes on the Greek text that:

 

Literally, “His own Father”-Greek- patera idion. It is clear that the Jews understood THAT JESUS WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD.’” (Scoffield NKJV, footnote on John 5:18; pg 843; 1989)”

 

Concerning the argument about the day of Sabbath has been already addressed:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/lord_of_sabbath.htm

Also the Jews understood that Jesus is God because Jesus called God his father (God also said that he is the father of Israel and Ephraim Jeremiah 31:9), which also does not prove that Jesus is God. The assumptions of the Jews do not mean that they were real. For example Jews believed and still believe that Jesus is an illegitimate child of a roman soldier and that his mother is a prostitute. Will the Christians or Gale accept that this is true because it was such understood by the Jews? I don’t think so. Also read about if Jesus was God because some of the Jews accused him of making himself as God http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/the_accusations.htm   

Gale posts the comments of A.T Robertson:

“But also called God his own Father (alla kai patera idion elege ton qeon). "His own" (idion) IN A SENSE NOT TRUE OF OTHERS. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See Romans 8:32 for o idioß uioß, "his own Son." Making himself equal with God (ison eauton poiwn twi qewi). Isoß is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Philippians 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ isa qewi, "equal to God" (plural isa, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be isoß qewi because in John 14:28 he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in John 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to CLAIMED EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER IN NATURE AND PRIVILEGE AND POWER as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses John 19-47). (Source)”

 

But amazingly Gale refuted from his favorite Scholar! By Saying “Jesus would not claim to be isoß qewi because in John 14:28 he says: "The Father is greater than I”. If the father is grater than Jesus I am asking Robertson and Gale how Jesus is equal then with the father?. Robertson fails to give references where Jesus SAID that he is equal with the Father, instead of that he gives references of what Paul said. As I stated from my previous articles Paul has nothing to do with Jesus, actually distorted the teachings of Jesus. Read about who Paul really was:

 

http://islamic-answers.com/jesus__words_only

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Pauline_Corruption_of_Biblical_Analysis.pdf (a must read)

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Jude_s_Epistle__More_Evidence_of_Rift_Between_
Jerusalem_and_Paul__.pdf

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Was_Paul_or_James__Church_the_more_succesfull_Evangelist.pdf

http://islamic-answers.com/jesus_or_paul_____audio_lecture_

http://islamic-answers.com/christianity

The quotes that Robertson gave are John 14:7, John 10:33, John 19:7 and these verses are “indicating” according to Robertson that Jesus is equal with God. These verses have been explained by Muslim apologists here:

 

 http://www.answering-christianity.com/john14_8_9.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/john10_30.htm ( in that verse we see that God in the Old Testament calls the Jews “Gods” a title that was never attributed to Jesus, indeed hilarious!!!!. And finally concerning the verse John 19:7 is nothing interested there. In that verse Jesus is just accused by the Rabbis that he was called “Son of God”  a title that has been given also to others in the Old Testament and New Testament, for example read Luke3:38, Genesis 6:2,4 , Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 2:7, Romans 8:14

 

 

But let us see some interesting quotes from the Bible that actually rejects the Deity of Christ and shows that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

 

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven”   (Matthew 7:21)

“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, bore witness of Me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape”   (John 5:37)

“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”  (Mark 10:18)

“And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.”   (John 8:50)

“ Jesus answered them and said, “my doctrine are not Mine, but His who sent Me”  (John 7:16)

“he who does not love me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent me”  (John 14:24)

“For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak”  (John 12:49)

“Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to accomplish His work”  (John 4:34)

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent me”  (John 6:38)

“saying, ‘Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done”  (Luke 22:42)

“I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me”  (John 5:30)

“I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”  (John 13:16)

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”  (John 14:28)

“Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me”   (John 8:42)

“To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father”  (Matthew 20:23)

“So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me”   (John 7:16)

I believe that has been made crystal clear to the reader if not that Jesus is inferior to God that at least he was sent by the Father, no Christian can deny that. Jesus by being the one that the Father sent, automatically puts him in lower level because Jesus said ““I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”.( John 13:16). So easily we can construct the following argument that proves Jesus was not equal with God

 

1) Jesus was sent by Father

 

2) Nor is a messenger (wrongly translated as a “messenger” the word in Greek is “apostolos” which means the one that is sent:

 ) greater than the one who sent him (according to john13:16)

Source: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm

 

3) Jesus was that “Apostolos” Apostle because he stated that he is the sent one from the Father.

 

4) Therefore Father is superior to Jesus

 

Simply the discussion has over, but I want willingly to continue and expose this amateur Gale and teach him the reality of his pagan man made religion of Paul.

Gale support that “Jesus was essentially saying that because God was his spiritual (not physical) Father in a special manner he had the right to perform certain functions and to act in certain ways that no other child of God could. Thus, by making such an assertion Jesus was expressly claming to have THE VERY SAME NATURE OF GOD HIMSELF.”

First, Let as see some others “Childs of God” that perform the same things like Jesus. All the miracles that Jesus performed by God permission, is also performed by others in the Bible for example:

“Bringing the dead back to life:

"Then he cried out to the LORD , "O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?"  Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD , "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!"  The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived.   Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house.   He gave him to his mother and said, "Look, your son is alive!"  (From the NIV Bible, 1 Kings 17:20-23)"

"But the child's mother said, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So he got up and followed her.   Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy's face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, "The boy has not awakened."  When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch.  He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD.  Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy's body grew warm.  Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.  Elisha summoned Gehazi and said, "Call the Shunammite." And he did. When she came, he said, "Take your son."  (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 4:30-36)"

Jesus' dead body never caused for any dead to come back to life, but Elisha's did:

"Elisha died and was buried.  Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring.  Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.   Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz.  (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 13:20-22)"

Creating life:

Jesus only restored life, but never actually created one from scratch.  Moses, however, did create a live snake from a wooden stick:

"Then the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?"  "A staff," he replied.  The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground."  Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it.  Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail."  So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand.  (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 4:2-4)"

Curing the blind:

"When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. "Oh, my lord, what shall we do?" the servant asked.  "Don't be afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them."  And Elisha prayed, "O LORD , open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.  As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD , "Strike these people with blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.  Elisha told them, "This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to Samaria.  After they entered the city, Elisha said, "LORD , open the eyes of these men so they can see." Then the LORD opened their eyes and they looked, and there they were, inside Samaria.  When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?"  "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master."  So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory.  Some time later, Ben-Hadad king of Aram mobilized his entire army and marched up and laid siege to Samaria.  (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 6:15-24)"

Healing leprosy:

"Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, "Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed."  But Naaman went away angry and said, "I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.  Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?" So he turned and went off in a rage.  Naaman's servants went to him and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, 'Wash and be cleansed'!"   So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.   (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 5:10-14)"

Feeding hundreds with few loafs of bread:

"A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said.  "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked.  But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: 'They will eat and have some left over.' "  Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the LORD.  (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 4:42-44)"

So as we clearly see from the above verses, Jesus' Miracles were not unique.  Therefore, they can never be used to prove that he is the Creator of the Universe. Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_miracles.htm

Secondly, concerning the “Same Nature that God shares with Jesus” you can Read the excellent booklet of Shieh Ahmed Deedat that refutes this pathetic argument: you can find this booklet here http://www.jamaat.net/gtnw/god.html  

The amateur and desperate missionary continues by claiming that Jesus applies to himself certain titles which belong to God exclusively such as “First and Last” This argument is also been addressed:  http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm ( event though, Gale attempted to respond but he really messed up the whole issue by repeating what the N.T says and giving his own interpretations)

The most important think to know is that during the time that Jesus spends on the earth, NOT ONCE was addressed as the Alpha and Omega, not once addressed as the First and the Last. All of a sudden we have a Jesus called Alpha and Omega or First and Last in the Apocalypse of John which by the way it was a dream and not the actual so called words of Jesus. Below I posted a perfect article concerning the subject of Jesus being “Alpha and Omega” and “First and the Last” that exposes the deceit of some Christians like Gale, by the way this articles is by Christians!

“  Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega (No. 229)

(Edition 1.0 19971217-19971217)

The arguments of modern Christianity regarding Christ have much of their origins in Greek philosophy and ancient religious practices running contrary to the Bible. Some of the biblical texts in English have been mistranslated to conceal the intent and structure of the application of the terms because they run counter to Trinitarian theology. The application of the terms Arche, Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end, are explained taking into account the various texts.

 

Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Email: secretary@ccg.org

(Copyright ã 1997 Wade Cox)

This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.

This paper is available from the World Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org

Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega

In the various papers on God and the Messiah, we have dealt with the first two aspects of the concepts embodied in the Godhead, namely those of God the Father, and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The summary obtained from the first section of our Statement of Beliefs is that God the Father is properly the one true God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that this understanding is the prerequisite to eternal life (Jn. 17:3).

God the Father

The Supreme Deity of the universe is God. He is the Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of the Heavens, the earth and all things therein (Gen. 1.1; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 124:8; Isa. 40:26,28; 44:24; Acts 14:15; 17:24,25; Rev. 14:7). He alone is immortal (1Tim. 6:16). He is our God and Father and the God and Father of Jesus Christ (Jn. 20:17). He is the Most High God (Gen. 14:18; Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; Mk. 5:7) and the One True God (Jn. 17:3; 1Jn. 5:20).

Jesus the Son of God

Jesus is the first begotten (prototokos) of the creation (Col. 1:15) hence the beginning (arche) of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14). He is the onlyborn (monogene) Son of God (Mat. 3:17; Jn. 1:18; 1Jn. 4:9), conceived of the Holy Spirit and born to the virgin, Mariam incorrectly called Mary in English (Lk. 1:26-35). He is the Christ or Messiah (Mat. 16:16; Jn. 1:41), sent from God to be our Saviour and Redeemer (Mat. 14:33; Jn. 8:42; Eph. 1:7; Tit. 2:14).

The comment at Revelation 3:14 that Christ is the arche of the creation of God has a great significance. We do not generally understand today why Jesus Christ said to John in relation to the Laodicean church, in effect, "tell the angel of the Laodicean church that I am the arche of the creation of God". Now the reason that was done was because, in the Laodicean church, the argument was to arise both in the church and in the era that Christ was not the arche of the creation of God. This argument centres around the eternality of matter and the immanence of God within all matter.

The word arche means beginning. The term used in Revelation 3:14 appears to relate to a philosophical discussion that was extant in the Middle East from Philo through the Middle Platonists to the neo-Platonists. The argument centred around the theory of the origin of the world. You need to understand this argument because the significance of it goes into the New Age Movement. Then you will understand the blasphemy of the New Age Movement. You will also understand that it is the prophecy of Jesus Christ that this argument would arise in the church in the last days and the Laodicean church would be prostituted by it and forfeit its right to the first resurrection. The theologian Clement of Alexandria took up the argument as a form of Gnosticism (Gnosis means knowledge hence Gnosticism was the process by which the initiated attained enlightenment). There were two levels involved; the laity and the Gnostic elements. The priesthood in fact became the Gnostic element. They allegedly had the secret knowledge and the laity were given a lesser level of understanding. This functionally became the doctrine of the Nicolaitans where the educated priesthood were held to obtain a knowledge which the laity did not attain to, or could not attain to because of the mysteries involved. Christ said that he hates the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and the doctrine of Balaam of teaching for hire. The doctrine of Balaam goes hand in hand with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and it, in fact, is directly anti-Christ. It confines or limits the capacity of the Holy Spirit to grow in the individual. We must understand the relationship and its application to the Holy Spirit. The doctrines are covered in the papers The Nicolaitans (No. 202) and also The Doctrine of Balaam and Balaam’s Prophecy (No. 204).

Clement followed the Jewish author Philo in interpreting the beginning of Genesis by resorting to the Platonic distinction between the sensible and the intelligible world. The material and immaterial worlds were basically developed along Platonic lines. Thus he was also in agreement with the school-Platonism which had also regarded the sensible world as a copy of the intelligible. Salvatore Lilla (Clement of Alexandria, Ch. III, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 192) notes this and on page 230 says:

In the doctrine of matter Clement, like Philo and Middle Platonism, seems to believe in its pre-existence and considers it as devoid of any form and quality (cf. Ch. III, p. 226).

The agreement was only partial as Clement rejects the view of school-Platonism according to which matter is one of the archai – the plurality of the beginning of the origins of the world. Clement said that could not be; but they said it was, and that matter was original. Clement maintains that God is the only true arche and that all other arche followed from God. Now Christ was saying that he was the arche of the creation of God because he created by delegation from God. That is the biblical position, and why Jesus Christ said it. Clement held later, that God is the only true arche, which is true from Revelation 4, where all things are created by the will of God. But the Platonists were saying that matter itself was an arche. Clement believed in the existence of matter prior to the origin of the world. In other words, matter had an intrinsic existence prior to the actual formation of the world. This is similar to the big bang theory where matter existed in the beginning. It was initiated and then condensed, formed into planets. So the world was created out of the big bang matter. So the big bang theory is not new. This is a Platonic doctrine. Clement defended the charge that the Stoics, Plato, and Aristotle had regarded matter as one of the first principles. He maintained that matter had been described by these philosophers as originally devoid of any quality and defined by Plato as me on coming into existence in a receptacle (upodoche) (see Timaeus 49e-50a, 50b-c), and being devoid of form (Tim. esp. 50d-e), difficult to know (51b1), apprehensible by means of illegitimate (bastard: Lilla) reasoning, and hardly believable (52b2). Clement appears to agree with them completely (Lilla, p. 193). So there you have the churches starting to formulate these concepts, moving away from the biblical into the Platonic. This is the precursor to Trinitarian reasoning and it is Platonism, pure and simple. Philo (the Jewish philosopher writing in the period before Christ) and Plutarch on the contrary consider matter as still an ousia (Lilla, p. 230). Lilla says that Plutarch together with the other Middle Platonists such as Albinus, Apuleis and the authors of the third book of Diogenes Laertius and of Hippolytus regarded matter as eternal and as devoid of any quality and form (ibid., Ch. III, pp. 193,195-6). So they were effectively saying it’s up there but there’s no quality, it’s hanging in the ether. You have this format (eternality) which possesses the qualities of God. It has eternality in its own right. From that thought process came the Babylonian Animist system. This reasoning was derived from the Babylonian and it is rather the formulation of those thought processes. In regarding matter as me on Clement agrees with neo-Pythagoreanism, with Plotinus, and perhaps also with Ammonius Saccas (Lilla, Ch. III, pp. 195-196 and fn. 1, p. 226).

Thus, matter is in debate as to whether it is formless eternal or formless created. That is the essence of the argument. The formless eternality of matter makes it an ousia or hypostasis of God, hence God is immanent because matter is a hypostasis of God and therefore God is in matter. From this quasi-Gnostic reasoning the Trinity was developed where the three hypostases of God were the primary hypostases. Now we are going beyond that in the churches.

The question then arose: Was the world generated or ungenerated? In other words, did it have life of itself or was it created. This pre-empts the argument today of evolution and creation. Christ was saying that it was not; that he was the arche. He was the instrument of God’s creation and that matter (the world) itself was not an arche and God is not immanent in matter, is not in rocks, in stone, and glass. To say that God is immanent in matter, in means of destruction and killing and that God himself is intrinsically evil, is blasphemy. You then get to the point where Satan was held to be evil from the moment of his creation and is in fact just a hypostasis of the evil of God.

Similarly, the angels are merely hypostases of God, as aspects of His message. One can now see the enormity of the blasphemy that is emerging. People are blinded to this problem. Chiefly because they are following doctrines of government which have nothing to do with the biblical system. That is why God and Christ hate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. It blinds people to the truth. They are subverted by Platonist doctrines. The elect are to be made aware of this doctrinal error.

The message to the Laodiceans is made somewhat clearer from this discussion. The philosophical debate centred around the contention that matter itself was an ousia or hypostasis of the one and thus God was immanent in all matter. God was thus in wood and stone. This is the fundamental supposition behind Animism including that found in Babylon, Shamanism, and all of Liberation Theology extending to Buddhism and into Japanese Shintoism. Now Sir Wallace Budge’s book on Babylon (he excavated it) has been around for a long time. We have known for more than a hundred years what the Babylonian religion is. The Babylonian religion was animistic and that is exactly the religion being pushed through many of the Churches today.

Clement, like Philo and the Middle Eastern Platonists – Plutarch and Atticus – openly favoured generation. Clement, following Philo, maintains that creation did not take place in time, since time itself is directly dependent upon the sensible world (Lilla, p. 230). This is fundamentally wrong (for the reasons outlined previously and in other papers) and was taken up by Augustine in City of God. To repeat the section on Time and Immortality from the paper Eternal Life (No. 133):

The concept of time only occurs when there is a relationship between objects. For example a day occurs as the movement of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun. A solar year is understood as the singular revolution of the earth around the Sun. There are various years involved in the rotation of the galaxy, i.e. Solar/Sidereal/Galactic. The universe has an expansion factor which relates the movement away from a primary point.

The primary point was determined by Penrose as being ten to the tenth to the 123rd [power]. Thus from the sheer magnitude of this number there must be a point of origin, and no other, for the universe. All of this movement is expressed in concepts of time which are related to the earth system.

Regardless of the method of measurement it can only be that time originates with the relationship of two or more objects to each other. Thus time could only begin with the existence of two or more objects. God existed before time. The generation of the elohim was in fact the beginning of time: The beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14). Colossians 1:15 says that Christ was the first begotten of the Creation.

The Lord God is thus the Alpha, as both cause and existent, and being the end objective of that action He is also the Omega:

Revelation 1:8 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come.

when he becomes all in all (Eph. 1:23).

So the concept of time began with the formulation of Jesus Christ. For when Jesus Christ was generated (and the elohim were generated) time began because there was a relationship between two beings. God alone existed in immortality. Regardless of the matter of measurement, these two objects originate time. Christ then becomes the creation of God from his generation. All creation originates from him and through him. So God is of the Alpha as both cause and existence and the end objective of the action. Thus, He is also the Omega from Revelation 1:8. Thus, Christ warned the Laodicean church and we are to take notice of the warnings to the Laodiceans.

Alpha and Omega as extended to Jesus Christ

The titles Alpha and Omega and the other terms used particularly in the book of Revelation answer Greek philosophical concerns as well as state the obvious facts of the delegation of the position of elohim to the elect through Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:11 in the KJV has a reference to Alpha and Omega as applied to Jesus Christ. This title is absent in the RSV and the ancient texts (cf. Companion Bible note to the text). It appears only in the Receptus and hence the KJV.

The importance of this addition is in its use to conceal the sequence of what is happening in the application of the titles from God to Christ in the sequence of the prophecy of Revelation.

Hence the original text which reads more or less as the RSV:

Revelation 1:11 11 saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a." (RSV)

This text becomes in the KJV:

Revelation 1:11 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)

This insertion in the text is done specifically to support Trinitarianism and negate the intent of the rest of Revelation in this matter.

Revelation 1:8 explains this reference as applying to God who Revelation 1:6 says is the God and Father of Christ.

Revelation 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (RSV)

We see again the KJV using the Receptus deletes the words ho theos or The God and uses only kurios or Lord. The text then carries the entirely different and fraudulent intent of both texts referring to Christ when Alpha and Omega are distinctly vested in the Lord God and Father of Christ and not applied to Christ at all from the beginning. This has much to do with the theology as it was developed from the Greek philosophical and Trinitarian concerns we see here. It was a deliberate attempt at concealing the true nature of the position of Christ in relation to his God and elevating him in the false structure of the Trinity.

Revelation 1:8 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (KJV)

Revelation 1:17 and 2:8 do not contain the words Alpha and Omega. They use protos and eschatos which imply another concept in distinction to the Alpha and Omega.

Revelation 1:17 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, (RSV)

Revelation 2:8 8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: `The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (RSV)

The terms protos and eschatos carry the concepts contained in Revelation 3:14 where Christ is the arche or beginning of the creation of God as prototokos or first begotten as a spiritual son. He later became the only born God of John 1:18 (as theos or elohim or monogene theos).

This function is increased. At the return of Messiah and in the end process with the advent of the City of God, we see Messiah as Alpha and Omega. These titles were not applied to him initially, which is the motivation behind the false translations and additions.

In Revelation 22:13-16 we see the two titles become merged in Messiah as he comes as the bright and morning star.

Revelation 22:13-16 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. 16 "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." (RSV)

He is given these titles as delegated power from God. As the protos of the creation he becomes one with the Alpha. As the eschatos of the creation he becomes one with the Omega as God becomes all in all (Eph. 4:6).

Revelation 21:6 shows the point when this event happens. Christ becomes the Alpha and the Omega and the arche and the telos. He is stated as arche or the beginning of the creation of God from Revelation 3:14. Here we have arche as beginning and telos as end. The word occurred is the collective neuter plural gegonan (cf. Rev. 16 and 17 and Marshall's Interlinear RSV). It is translated as it is done. However it means and Marshall renders it as it has occurred.

Revelation 21:6 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. (RSV)

It has occurred is translated as it is done to conceal the concept that this process of God becoming all in all commences with Christ who was not that way in the beginning.

We are thus dealing with a progressive concept of the activities of Messiah and the elect. "Behold I make all things new".

God is becoming all in all. Thus God is the Omega or end result of His own creation. The Trinitarian translators of the KJV deliberately hide this fact and concept from its readers.

Christ as Arche within Trinitarianism

The arguments referred to above are held to be a feature of the message to the Laodicean church. Thus the argument must be a central source of error in that church – or era by extension. The prophesies say what the error is. It is the central error of the Laodicean church and the reason that God spews the Laodicean church out of His mouth.

Christ is saying that he was the arche of the creation of God. Clement had to have God as the only true arche to prevent the concept of Christ being the beginning of an activity of God. That is what it is all about. The Trinitarians do not want Christ in that position because Christ then becomes an activity of God rather than God Himself as a Binitarian structure.

Unless you have the Binitarian structure you can’t build the Trinity – and the seeds of the Trinity are inherent in the Binitarian structure. Hence, Binitarianism contains the seeds of its own destruction. Hand in hand with this error is the Soul doctrine. Clement was, however, a theologian who was, to all intents and purposes, a Gnostic. He believed in the Soul doctrine and that the souls ascended through seven levels and are free from material passions and possess gnosis (Lilla, p. 182). Thus the elect were held to go through this process of enlightenment. Any church, on becoming Trinitarian, will be committed to embracing the Soul doctrine. Ultimately there has to be a world soul system developed and then individuals become part of that world soul. The ascent of the seven levels that Clement is talking about is pure Shamanism. It emanated from the Babylonian system and went out into the Steppes of Russia with the dispersion after the flood. It formed the Shamanic systems where the adherent goes from one level to the next through seven levels generally. There can be as many as nine and thirteen. There is a spirit or demon controlling (or God as they call them) each of the seven levels until you ascend to the highest level. That’s what Clement was proposing and that’s what the Platonic mystical ascents are all about. That was what the Cappadocian theologians were proposing. They were advocating mystical ascent of the seven levels. The deity they got to was not God. They were demonists. The same system applies in Buddhism today. At a Buddhist preordination ceremony there is a cone with levels in it, with an egg on one level; all of it symbolic of evoking the spirits down through the levels to go into the adherent. Anyone in Buddhism is necessarily in the Shamanic system. They invoke the spirits to go into them and take them over. The whole structure of ascent of the soul is geared around demonism and an invocation of spirits. It is a different spirit to the Holy Spirit. That is why it is important to understand that before we study the Holy Spirit. The material difference between Christian, Platonist and Gnostic creation theory involving arches is that the Gnostics believed that the archontes were generally evil powers under the jurisdiction of Jaldabaoth the inferior demiurge of the material world (see Apochryphon of John 41:12-14 and codex II Krause-Labib, II. 4-5, p. 139; Lilla, p. 183 and fn. 5). The functional difference is in the first two centuries. The identification as the Logos was done as the second hypostasis of God. Clement identifies the logos as the second hypostasis of God, not the first with the divine wisdom, the first of the beings created by God and His adviser (Lilla, p. 208). The adviser to God was wisdom from Proverbs 8:22. That comes from a misapprehension of the role of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the first power of God extant with God in the creation. The Holy Spirit did not come after Christ. It logically emanated from God, as His power. It is the means by which Christ and all of the Host are tied to God. This argument is so important, so study it to understand the arguments of these people.

The debate thus centred around a philosophy which sought to wrest Scripture or misapply that Scripture so that all elements of the creation were in fact hypostases or ousia of God. Hypostases and ousia were not the same disciplinary terms. Hypostases is a Stoic term; ousia is a Platonic term. Both mean essentially the same thing. The Trinitarians use hypostases as aspects of the one ousia. So they use the two terms to mean God as containing the three hypostases. It is important to understand what these people are saying when they use the terms (see the paper The Use of the Term Hypostasis (No. 230) for a fuller explanation of these terms). The angels are thus held to be hypostases of God as the demons are also. Thus Satan could be evil from the moment of his creation as has been advanced recently by some academics in the Churches of God. We have seen already how this is not true. The Bible is quite clear that Satan was perfect from the moment of his creation (Ezek. 28:15).

The concept is that: As God is immanent and all entities are merely hypostases of God, Satan is thus an hypostases who has no reality other than as an expression of the mind of God. Similarly, the angels also merely reflect God and have no real existence other than as hypostases. This deception extends to material immanence through the neo-Platonist philosophical developments. It extends beyond fundamental Trinitarianism into Process Theology developed from neo-Platonism. It is the basis of the system of worship of the last days.

This system of Process Theology developed by neo-Platonists from Trinitarianism will be the system which will take over Buddhism and all these other religions and combine it into the system of the last days. It is applicable to Shintoism and Hindu Liberation Theology. It is a generalised system and it is a means of destruction of the Catholic Church, not of its preservation. It is the means by which the Beast turns on the Whore and destroys it. We are, in fact, watching the religion of the last days being instituted. It also has its beginning in the Churches of God. It is from this system that the Man of Sin will ascend. This system would deceive even the very elect if that were possible.

This concept is the absolute deception and has entered the Church of God in the last days as Christ indicates. Christ made the comments to show that he was the beginning or arche of the creation of God. Clement was correct in that God was the true arche in that He created from His will and from His will all things were created (Rev. 4:11). God is thus the creator but Christ was the instrument of the creation and was its beginning (see above).

The idea that the divine wisdom is the adviser of God and the first of the beings created by God is, according to Lilla, characteristic of the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy prior to Philo. So the Jews at Alexandria understood that wisdom was the first of the elements created by God. So it proceeded from God, with the Word of God then coming into existence and being tied together to God, by wisdom as the Holy Spirit. It is the Sophia of Ecclesiasticus 1:4 and the first created entity of Proverbs 8:22. The Wisdom of Solomon 9:9 shows it assists God in the creation. Genesis refers to the Spirit of God at Genesis 1:2. The writers just before Christ incorrectly explained this aspect of the power of God as a being and this error has persisted to this day as the concept that the Holy Spirit is a person. That is the origin of the error.

The Spirit was logically the first emanation of God, because the generation of Christ and the other elohim made it logically necessary for there to be in place a mechanism for their integration with God in order that there be absolute Monotheism as a unified whole. God is the centre of all beings. All beings in the Host are tied to Him by the Holy Spirit. It is through the Spirit that the nature of God is transmitted to all beings, both Christ and the rest of the elect, and ultimately all humans. That’s the mechanism and unless you understand that process you can’t really understand what is happening with the Holy Spirit. It occurs because the law of God emanates from the abiding goodness of the nature of God. So, it can’t be Binitarian because there is an ultimate centrality to goodness, and that goodness is God. Christ said that only God is good; why call me good, only God is good because of the logic of the centrality of ultimate goodness. You can’t have a ditheist system. Reasoning, logic, tells us that we cannot. The law of God proceeds from the nature of God that stands forever, as God Himself is unchangeable, being essentially good as the centre of ultimate goodness.”

Source: http://www.logon.org/english/s/p229.html

Also check: http://www.answering-christianity.com/alpha_omega.htm

 

As you have already understand the arguments of Gale is just a vain repetition that already have been refuted. For example check below what the parrot Gale repeats:

Other exclusive Divine prerogatives which Jesus claims to have include the following:

 

"... And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men... And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, `My son, your sins are forgiven.' But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, `Why does this man speak that way? HE IS BLASPHEMING; WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS BUT GOD ALONE?' And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, `Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven"; or to say, "Arise take up your pallet and walk"? But in order that you may know that THE SON OF MAN HAS AUTHORITY ON EARTH TO FORGIVE SINS'- He said to the paralytic- `I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.' And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, `We have never seen anything like this.'" Mark 2:3, 5-12”

As you see, Gale is repeating his self. Just check his firs response to me to identify his repetition. Anyway the answer from my side is the same. Jesus has authority and power by the Father he does not owns it, therefore he cannot be a God.  

Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are of you. John 17:7

The phrase “all things” refer to miracles, power to forgive sins, etc

1. These words spoke Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that your Son also may glorify you:

2. As you have given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as you have given him. John 17:1-2

The Father gave power to Jesus

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ( Matthew 28:18)

I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me. John 5:30

Again and again it is crystal clear that Jesus can do nothing without the Father, therefore Jesus cannot be like the Father, which means that cannot be God.

Gale show us the a verse from the antichrist Paul which is Hebrews 1:8-9, total irrelevant, Paul has nothing to do with Jesus, and this is not the perspective of Jesus. Check above the statements of Jesus where he denies deity. But it is really interesting to see in that verse the stupidity of Paul:

8. But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.

9. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. Hebrews 1:8-9

Here we can identify pure ancient Greek Polytheism! A God that has a God. Therefore 2 Gods. But surprisingly the unholy Bible clearly accepts the idea that a man can be called god. For example we read:

I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. Psalms 82:6

Now the Christians apologist support that this verse is a metaphorical one, personally I don’t care if it is literally or metaphorical because simple we have the word “GODS” which describes humans. So even Jesus ever declared God (which nowhere occurs by the lips of Jesus) it does not mean NOTHING according to Psalms 82:6

But it getting worst for Gale. Concering the quote Hebrews 1:9 he says:

“As for the part dealing with anointing, "to anoint" means to appoint someone and set him aside for the service of God”

It seems Gale cannot understand or comprehend what he writes because from the above statement he clearly shows that Jesus was anointed by God, therefore according to his above statement Jesus is the SERVANT of God. This amateur needs to go back to School in order to learn how to construct an argument.

Moreover, Gale admits in a diplomatic way a contradiction that occurs in his unholy book:

He quotes: “‘But,’ he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.’” Exodus 33:20

“Yet both the Old and New Testaments refer to God appearing to people on more than one occasion:”

Then Gale quotes the verses Genesis 32:24-30, Isaiah 6:1-5, Ezekiel 1:26-28, 2:1-5, to show us that God appeared to the people. Indeed sickness of the high order! This missionary exposes his own unholy book as a contradictory one. He tries also to support that the God that did not appeared was the Father but the One that appeared was the Son God, I ask him directly this clown, “ from were have you drawn this conclusion Gale? I challenge you first of all to show me where the Jesus is described as God the Son. Then he quotes:

 

"No one has ever seen God. It is GOD THE ONLY SON, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." John 1:18 NRSV

 

 Quennel Gale use a wrong translation concerning John 1:18. Let us check some other translations of the Bible to see that there is no mention of the phrase “God the only Son”:

 

[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18 King James Version

 

1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him John 1:18 American Standard Version

 

18 No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18 Darby

 

The Greek text says:

 

qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote o monogenhV uioV o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

Source: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm

As you see there is absolutely nothing such us “God the only Son”. The desperate missionary continues by challenging me:

 

1. “How many prophets or angels were called GOD THE ONLY SON like Jesus?
2. How many prophets or angels did God the Father call GOD and tell them that their throne would last forever?
3. How many prophets or angels claimed to be the very “First and Last” like God Almighty?
4. How many prophets or angels claimed to be equal with God?”

 

My responses to the following challenges are simply to answer:

1.      There is no such thing “God the only Son” and I challenge you to show me from the original Greek N.T where occurs such a phrase. I clearly demonstrated that this is an error from NRSV Bible translation 

2.      God never declared no one as God, it is just the opinion, and the interpretation of the satan and antichrist Paul. I challenge you to show me where Jesus SAID directly that the Father called him God.

   3.    Read: http://www.logon.org/english/s/p229.html

        http://www.answering-christianity.com/alpha_omega.htm Have been already        addressed

4.    No one of the Prophets claimed to be equal with God, Jesus said “my Father is Greater than I” John 14:28. Do you call that equality?

 

Gale continuously tries to defend the antichrist Paul. In my response I quoted from the Bible the verses that present Paul as a deceiver and a liar then he posts the “answer” of Sam Shamoun which is the following:

“Paul on Lying 

Muslims often claim that Paul admitted to lying in Romans 3:7-8. Yet when we actually read these verses in context, a different picture altogether arises. It is clear that Paul was speaking figuratively. Paul was addressing how man's unrighteousness manifests God's righteous judgment more clearly. Paul then addresses a hypothetical question a person might ask that if in fact one's falsehood proves that God is righteous, then why does God condemn the individual? Here is the passage in question:  

“But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? ‘If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’ Why not say - as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say – ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is deserved.” Romans 3:5-8  

Interestingly, Paul indicates that it was deceitful men who were slanderously accusing the Apostle of condoning sin and falsehood, a charge to which Paul places under the condemnation of God”

Sam Shamoun considers that the context begins from verse Romans 3:5 and ends to the verse 8. Then Shamoun states that Paul indicates that it was the deceitful men who were slanderously accusing him (Paul). But this not the case. Paul addresses the people that accusing him of promoting evil in order to result good, not concerning about his lie. Paul refers not about his lie, only refers and accuse the people that they are saying that he promote evil in order for good results. This accusation of Paul has nothing to do about saying lies is just address the people that he is not using evil, but he never argues that he don’t use lies.

For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie to his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? Romans 3:7 King James Version    

Notice that Paul says that he was reported to do evil, these is what Paul denies and accuse but he support and accept the lie simply because Paul does not consider lying to be an evil act. There is a clear distinction. Even Shamoun admits the following:

“Paul basically addresses a possible objection which a person may raise that one should continue lying if this further glorifies God and refutes it by saying that one must be truthful”

Therefore according to Shamoun there is no problem if we lie. Total mess.

Then he wrongly and falsely post the quote:

"I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong! Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty and got the better of you by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not act in the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps? Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? It is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved. For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish--that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced. 2 Corinthians 12:11-21

The chapter begins as follows and sees how they hide it in purpose:

11. I am become a fool in glorying; you have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very most chief apostles, though I be nothing.

12. Truly the signs of an apostle were worked among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

13. For what is it wherein you were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

14. Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not your's but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

16. But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

17. Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent to you?

18. I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

19. Again, think you that we excuse ourselves to you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

20. For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found to you such as you would not: lest there be debates, contentions, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, arrogance, tumults:

21. And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall mourn many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. 2 Corinthians 12:11-21

 

From the above verses Paul presented as glorying personality and the worst is that he accuses others for his boastfulness, also he is presenting that he caught people with guile. The only pathetical response by missionary Shamoun is to say that he is speaking with sarcasm. He also claims that Paul deals with some accusations here that occur from the verse 2 Corinthians 10:1-18. Let us see if that is the case:

1. Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:

2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, with which I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.

3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4. (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

7. Do you look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

8. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord has given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

9. That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.

10. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

11. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

12. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

13. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God has distributed to us, a measure to reach even to you.

14. For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not to you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:

15. Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,

16. To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

17. But he that glories, let him glory in the Lord.

18. For not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.  2 Corinthians 1:18

 

As you have read there are no accusations here in the above quote, only poor imaginations from the missionary Shamoun and his clown Gale. But the interesting thing is that if we compare the two quotes “2 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 12:11-21we have some contradictory meanings, for example Paul says “I am become a fool in glorying” (2 Corinthians 12:11) and the whole quote of 2 Corinthians 1:1-18 argues that “though I should boast somewhat more of our authority” (2 Corinthians 1:8)

. So we must ask this fool Paul (according to his statement) is a good thing to boast (2 corinthians 1:8) or his a fool for that (2 Corinthians 12:11)? The whole point is that Paul claimed that he is a liar, a deceiver and preaching with guile. By the way such was understood by his people, and according to Gale If this was understood by a community for a person then this is true. I am saying that because Gale always presents the argument that if the Jews understood that Jesus was God then Jesus is God. In my turn I say to Gale if Paul was understood that he was a deceiver, liar and preaching with guile (actually he admitted from the above verses) then this is the truth. Shamoun then desperately brings the scholars to back up his own falsely interpretations but this a really waste of time because the text is so clear in which Paul     describe himself as a deceiver, liar, and preaching with guile.

The desperate amateur Christian brings the subject of Allah being a deceiver. This argument has been already eliminated. He quotes for example

The Hypocrites - they seek to deceive Allah but it is Allah Who DECEIVES them. When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance; S. 4:142  

I am asking Gale what is the wrong with God deceiving the deceivers? They are evildoers and they deserve it. Gale also quote:

And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54  

Again, Allah schemed to whom? To the unbelievers.

[008:030]  Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans; but the best of planners is God

To whom again? To the unbelievers who slay and drive people out of their homes.

You cannot compare God to those evildoers. Because those evildoers are deceiving innocent people, while God is deceiving those evil doers in order to stop their evil plots.

Even Sam Shamoun said in his debate that he had with Shabyr Ally

“About deception that’s a difficulty in Islamic scholarship and I cannot comment because I do believe that God is sovereign and can choose to use methods that to us seem to be unacceptable but it does not affect on his holiness so I have no problem with that Quranic statement”

Source: Part 3, which can be downloaded here in the 16^th minute, 35^th second

But why Gale has a problem with God deceiving people? I am asking because his own unholy Bible describes God that deceives people even the innocent ones!

Jeremiah 4:10

Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats."

The word for deceived here is nasha, which means

1) to beguile, deceive

a) (Niphal) to be beguiled

b) (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

c) (Qal) utterly (infinitive)

                                   

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1144094423-2544.html

 

Jeremiah is not indifferent to the message, which he is called to preach. In v 10 a note is struck to which he will return in relation to himself (15:18). In his distress he accuses the Lord of having deceived the people, presumably by having allowed false prophets to convince them with a message of peace (cf. 6:13–14). The only reply is the Lord’s own confirmation that judgment is sure. (New Bible Commentary)

Even it was really the false prophets who did the act of deception; the Bible is actually shifting the blame to God for actually allowing the false prophets to do the deception. This is what the “inspired” author Jeremiah said and this is what we got to accept. God deceived innocent people.

  The difference is that Allah deceives for the purpose of good and not evil. Deception is usually associated with negative aspects, however Allah did not do so.

Other verses that present the biblical God as a deceiver:

1 Samuel 16:16 "Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the harp. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, and you will feel better."

1 Samuel 18:10 "The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand..."

1 Samuel 19:9 "But an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the harp,..."

1 Kings 22:23 "God sent LYING SPIRITS to lie to people" 

I would love an answer from the clown Gale.

 

He continues by ignoring my challenge on the topic “Where Jesus said he is God”? And he gives a link which supports that Jesus indeed said that he is God. This is the biggest Joke because in all of his quotes that he gives from the lips of Jesus, NOT ONCE Jesus says “I am God”. I remind again to the reader( especially to Christians) That even if Jesus was said that he is God then again does not mean anything and we must not take him as God, very simple because God said to common people “you are Gods” (Psalms 82:6). Which obviously according to Christianity and Judaism don’t consider them as Gods. But again Gale fails to present such evidences because simple Jesus never said he is God, yet his title of his article says that Jesus said it! Indeed hilarious. Therefore this clown never met the challenge and will never be able to.

Gale continues his desperate article by trying to solve the problem of Paul vision he quotes:

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

(Haley p.359)

Indeed a foolish answer. First of all the word that the Greek text use is “akouodes” not “akouo” But this is not the problem. Let us post the two quotes and see for your self the contradiction:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)

Vs

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. Acts 22:9

As you can understand, acts 9:7 speaks about “hearing a voice” and also acts 22:9 speak that they “not heard the voice”. Am asking the missionary how can that mean that they didn’t understand the voice? This phrase can not be uttered in Greek grammar simply because it has no meaning. The sound it’s not something that you have to understand it or not, but to heard it or not because we “hear the voice we don’t understand it. Is like if I said “I don’t understand the colour” there is no meaning. Therefore both acts 22:9 and acts 9:7 carry the same meaning of hearing and not understanding. So the contradiction remains.

He continues quoting:

56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men 'stood speechless' after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions.

(Haley p.359)

Again let us post the quotes:

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecute you me? it is hard for you to kick against the pricks. Acts 26:14

Vs

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)

The word in Greek for stood is “ eistikeisan” which means:

“a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare tiqhmi - tithemi” Source: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm

The verse acts 9:7 obvious use the meaning “to stand” in the Greek language, this is actually the reason why the source that use Gale does not mention the Greek word and use the English word in order to avoid the confusion. So there is a clear contradiction.

Then, Gale posts:

57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn't worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story.

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and his conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul's case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, "I lived as a Pharisee," as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27. (Source)

 

Again let us post the quotes to see for our own:

16. But rise, and stand on your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of these things which you have seen, and of those things in the which I will appear to you;

17. Delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom now I send you,

18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Acts 26:16-18

Vs

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will you have me to do? And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told you what you must do. Acts 9:6

Is it so difficult to read and comprehend that Paul in Acts 26:16-18 said instantly what to do and that in Acts 9:6 was commanded to go to Damascus and from there will know what to do? All the “personal” interpretations that the source of Gale use is pathetic explanations to hide the contradiction, he is not explain or show the verses, is jus give possibilities that no where are supported by the text.

After finishing the contradiction on the vision of Paul, Gale tries to show that the disciples of Jesus and Paul were in complete harmony by saying that Zaatari actually said that Paul fought the disciples and not the bible. Now let us quotes how Paul was antagonized the disciples and was in constant confrontation with them:

“It is a common misconception amongst Christians that Paul and the Apostles of Christ were unanimous in their preaching of a crucified Jesus. Christians think that the apostles and Paul were preaching the same doctrine and everyone believed in the divine Jesus who came to be crucified for the sins of the world. However, if one examines the bible carefully, that person would observe that Paul and the disciples were not preaching the same doctrine and did not believe in the same Jesus.

The Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Galatia and Corinthia. Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don't have to eat kosher meat anymore or to be circumcised (according to Genesis 17::14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision) etc. So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul is wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities...

 

Galatians 1:6

⁶I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

It says different Gospel, so obviously the disciples were teaching them a different doctrine and it was not just minor issues.

 

Galatians 2:11-21

Paul Opposes Peter

¹¹When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹²Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) ¹³The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)

 ¹⁴When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

¹⁵"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' ¹⁶know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. ( why are they arguing over following the law or not? Why are they not in agreement of doctrine?)

 ¹⁷"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. ¹⁹For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"^[d]

Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. We only have Paul's side of the story but Peter's recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament.

Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul. There is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter.

 

Acts 4:31

³¹After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up. James is Jesus' half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people have to eat kosher meat? We don't have any account of Peter's story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse 13. Look how in verses 15 thought 17 Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have mentioned it. How could he say those things to Peter and look what Jesus said about Peter.

 

Matthew 16:18

⁸And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Paul said in Romans that all food is clean.

 

Romans 14:20

²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

In the Book of Acts the Apostles wrote a letter to the gentiles to abstain from certain foods and that not all foods were declared clean

Acts 15:29

²⁹You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

 

Galatians 3:1-3

¹You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. ²I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? ³Are you so foolish?

Obviously we have people that are disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law is over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.

2 Corinthians 11:4-5

⁴For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. ⁵But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

This is all doctrine and again he is criticizing the disciples.

 

2 Corinthians 11: 22-24

What anyone else dares to boast about?I am speaking as a fool?I also dare to boast about. ²²Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. ²³Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. ²⁴Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Again he is comparing himself to the disciples. If this man were truly doing all this work for God, he would not be complaining about his pain and torturing and suffering. If he is truly sincere he would not have mentioned those things. Prophets and messengers never complained and boasted about their sufferings.”

 Taken from: 

http://muslim-responses.com/Paul_VS_the_Disciples/Paul_VS_the_Disciples_

After that Gale argues that according to the Quran all the Diciples of Jesus was Muslims and that includes Paul to be a Muslim. He posts as evidence:

“  And behold! I INSPIRED THE DISCIPLES to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger. THEY SAID, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah AS MUSLIMS'. S. 5:111

 

This means that Paul must have been a Muslim as well! But how could this be when Paul and the rest of Christ’s followers all taught things contrary to the message of Muhammad? The only explanation is that Muhammad erroneously assumed that Jesus’ followers taught the same things he taught, but little did he realize that he was DEAD wrong”

This ignorant of Christianity maybe does not know that Paul has nothing to do with the Disciples of Jesus. So let us remind him that the disciples of Jesus were 12 and then Paul appeared after the disappearance of Jesus. So in any case Paul is a disciple of Jesus. The important thing is not what the disciples taught but what their master taught and their Master Jesus taught exactly what Prophet Muhammad taught. Also the teaching of Paul has nothing to do with the teaching of the disciples, check again the article above:  

http://muslim-responses.com/Paul_VS_the_Disciples/Paul_VS_the_Disciples_

Gale said:

“Mr. Eldin fails to inform us how Paul insulted the religion of Jesus when the earliest evidence that we have shows that Paul’s teachings perfectly agreed with the instructions of his risen Lord and Master. Note these examples which demonstrate that Paul taught the same things that Jesus did:”

Let us analyze in detail how Paul contradicted Jesus, an answer of the article that he posts “Did Jesus and Paul teach the same thing?” The following article is taken by

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

This article will address the following:

·         Paul was Satan in the Flesh

·         Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus

·         Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from "revelations."

·         Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.

·         Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father

·         Paul declared  he himself was the son of God

·         Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to

·         Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did.

·         Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing.

·         Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over!

·         Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's lying?

·         Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14,  something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.

·         Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

·         In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"

·         Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples

·         Paul claimed he himself was the son of God

·         Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?

 

 

The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver! He was Satan In The Flesh! An Antichrist! Matthew 24:4-5 states you will be deceived by people that come using Jesus’ name. Consider the parable of the sower. Jesus was warning us then that as soon as His Gospel was preached, the enemy (Paul) would be there to steal the truth!   ***The real (untranslated) name of Jesus is Y'hoshua   (pronounced like the name Joshua but with a Y, YoHoshua, some pronounce his name as Yeshua). All refer to the Son of God who came as the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins and rose again. Now before you throw a tantrum and wonder why I haven't been struck by lightening straight from the throne room of God, I can prove to you that Paul was a Fraud using his own words. Of course, if you're a female, and you're in the ministry, you already know he was, you probably just didn't realize it! For to be a female and in the ministry of the Lord, you had to turn your back on Paul to follow Jesus. Congrats! You figured it out! You refused to buy into the lie pie Satan tried to sell you as Paul! I'm going to make some startling points to wake your mind up into the truth, so hear me out, then I'll go through and explain each one and give you all the proof you need to see for yourself that what I'm saying is indeed the truth. ·         Paul was Satan in the Flesh ·         Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus ·         Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from "revelations." ·         Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying. ·         Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father ·         Paul declared  he himself was the son of God ·         Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to ·         Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did. ·         Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing. ·         Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over! ·         Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's lying? ·         Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14,  something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5. ·         Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21. ·         In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!" ·         Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples ·         Paul claimed he himself was the son of God ·         Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?   Jesus: When Yahshua confronts the Adversary, he defeats him by saying, "You shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH, and Him alone will you serve." Paul: When Paul is mobbed by people who wish to stone him for preaching against the Law of YHWH, he relies on the worldly authorities as a Roman entitled to the protection of the government rulers who save him (Dt. 8:3, Mt.4:4, Acts 22:26, 23:27   Jesus: "DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9) The devil 'PAUL' BLASPEMOUSLY BOASTED "For I BECAME YOUR FATHER" (1 Corinthians 4:15) " JESUS came to Galilee PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM " (Mark 1:14, Matt.4:23). JESUS said " THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM will be PREACHED, IN MY NAME in all the world (Matt.24:14). 'PAUL' CAME preaching, by his own admission, ANOTHER GOSPEL PROMOTING LAWLESSNESS and LICENTIOUSNESS many excerpts taken from disciplesofchrist.com "I ('PAUL') testify to the gospel of the grace of god...ANOTHER GOSPEL...ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL " (Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).   "PERVERTING THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO LAWLESSNESS EVEN DENYING THE ONLY LORD GOD (THE FATHER) AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST (THE FATHER'S SON)" (Jude 4. 1 John 2:22)   'PAUL' CURSED JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES " If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we (Paul and his followers) have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE" (Gal 1:18) There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and "his" followers. Barnabbas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabbas was sent by the Apostle Peter  to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn't going to play second fiddle to anyone and  usurped the authority of Barnabbas and taught what he wanted to teach.  How many ever knew that Paul was suppose to be subservient to Barnabbas?

 

 

 

 

 

As you read from the above Paul described even by non Muslims as liar, deceiver, and that in general has nothing to do with Jesus with very good proofs and references from the N.T

Also visit: http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy which takes a detail historical view of Pauline corrupted doctrine.

Having said all that and proved beyond a doubt that Paul is a deceiver and he insulted the true religion of Jesus and opposed it, we must see some quotes of some prominent western Scholars about their opinion concerning Paul.

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly
immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it
was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])


Thomas Jefferson

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here, can be
found in Christianity Betrayed)


Albert Schweitzer

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had
to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on
the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially
relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."


Wil Durant (Philosopher)

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of
Christ."
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."


Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."


George Bernard Shaw

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its
legs again in the name of Jesus."


Thomas Hardy
"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)

"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and
the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian
tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter
opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with
horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the
imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree,
as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in
spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is
not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale
inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)


Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher)

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)

Carl Jung (Psychologist)

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World
Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)


Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).

 

Gale continues to be a clown by saying the following

 Actually, I forgot to put what the source was. The source comes from Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah titled The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press Karachi). This is the most authentic biography of Muhammad in Islam since it is based on Ibn Ishaq’s earlier material, which predates the Sahih Hadiths. This quote is authentic and is universally accepted by many of Muslim scholars such as al-Tabari:

 

"Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed." (he History of Al-Tabari: The Ancient Kingdoms, trans. Moshe Perlmann [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], Volume IV, p. 123; bold emphasis ours)

 

And al-Qurtubi:

 

It was said that THIS VERSE was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos (?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas (?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.

Allah supported them (the apostles) with evidence so that they prevailed (thahirin) meaning they became the party with the upper hand. Just as it is said, "An object appeared on the wall" meaning it is clearly visible (alu-wat) on the wall. Allah, who is glorified and exalted, knows the truth better and to Him is the return and retreat. (Commentary on Q. 61:14: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=61&nAya=14; translated into English by Dimitrius, bold and capital emphasis ours)

I already answered to this clown but he ignores it. I said that even if it is a valid one then nowhere in the text present Paul as the truthful Apostle. The strange thing is that it claims this quote that Paul was NOT one of the disciples of Jesus. In addition, this quote is not an authentic hadeedth from our Prophet Muhammad or a verse from the Holy Quran. Despite the fact that the most important to say about these Islamic sources are not ALL of them Valid in a Islamic Theological concept, is just expressing a personal opinion of the Muslim writer. The same apply for the quote “[State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], p. 123;”

 Also keep in mind that Al-Tabari and Ibn-Ishaq and other sources are extremely doubtful and unauthenticated.  Most Muslim scholars today firmly and strongly believe in this. We Muslims can't take them as absolute Truth or accurate information.  Much of these volumes are either corrupt or taken out of context.  Again, this is according to the Muslims scholars.  This is why these volumes are considered "unauthenticated”

The truth is that Paul exposed in the Quran:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Quran_and_Paul/The_Quran_and_Paul_ 

 

The clown ends by saying:

Mr. Eldin rests upon the fact that the statement “what God has prepared for those who love him" somehow proves that it was Allah, not Paul, who originated this teaching. Apparently he doesn’t realize that Allah didn't directly quote Isaiah but parroted Paul's words which he wrote under inspiration.

 

The reference to what God has prepared for those who love him isn't present at all in the Isaiah text or in any of the OT sayings attributed to God. It is a statement of Paul’s as he paraphrased what the OT says regarding this issue.

 

In other words, Muhammad is putting in the mouth of Allah THE VERY WORDS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL! This was my whole point!

It seems that the desperate missionary didn’t understand what I meant. Paul said what God said:

as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him 1 Corinthians 2:9

As you can see and Gale even admitted that this quote is the GODS WORDS not Paul,it is irrelevant If he paraphrased it or not the point is that Paul quoted Isaiah and Isaiah quoted God. Prophet Muhammad said that also GOD SAID have prepared for My righteous slaves (such excellent things) as no eye has ever seen, nor an ear has ever heard nor a human heart can ever think of.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 589). My whole point was that this is not the words of Paul or words of the Prophet of God, Muhammad put the words of God. Therefore Muhammad mentions what Allah said to Jeremiah. The source was Allah which we Muslims we believe he is God. It seems that Gale need some lessons on who Allah really is for Muslims

In conclusion I want to say that Gale hardly addressed my refutation against him. He only scratched the surface of my two initial answers to him. He hardly addressed the 20% percent of my article which is located here:  http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Kyrios_rebuttal.htm please check it and verify it by your self. But I addressed his whole article in detail, and exposed him again as a clown, ignorant, desperate, amateur Christian missionary.

    

     

 

     

  

    

  

    

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.