When a missionary tries to respond Part 4

Ahmed Eldin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:18:48 +0000

Response to Quennel Gale on the topic “Is Jesus God because he said “I am Alpha and Omega” Part 3

Exposing Gale’s desperation

By Ahmed Eldin

Once again it is my pleasure to expose and rebut Quennel Gale because he exposes in public his ignorance on Christianity. Beside the fact that Gale never met my initial argument he also tried to escape it with monkey tricks, something that characterize the Christian missionaries. Below I refute him by pointing out his desperation. I advise the reader to read his response to me and then my article.

His second response is here: http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_Omega_rebuttal_2.html

Gale first pathetic response:

Unlike Mr. Ahmed, I did mention that the other sections would be addressed in due time. However, in my initial article here: http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_and_Omega.html

Mr. Ahmed only addressed the part relating to Mel in Hebrews 7. Now as for him dealing with “his argument” wasn’t it Mr. Ahmed who appealed to Sami Zaatari on “the alpha and Omega” argument? Yes:

When Muslims corner Christians on the subject “Is Jesus God”? Christians often try to prove the divinity of Jesus by quoting the passage from the Revelation that Jesus said, “I am Alpha and the Omega”. However, this argument is soundly refuted:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm

Hence, by appealing to another person, you are including them into the argument. If Mr. Eldin didn’t want me to address what Zaatari said, HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER PRESENTED HIS VIEWS IN HIS PAPER IN THE FIRST PLACE! Only someone totally brainless would think that it doesn’t make sense to address a source used in a particular argument WHEN THEY ARE USING THAT VERY SOURCE AS EVIDENCE! Mr. Eldin obviously doesn’t have the means or “copied and past resources” to refute what was presented against him so he chose to ignore it. That’s fine by me since my job is to present an objective article for the neutral person to read. I am not concerned about convincing Muslim propagandists. As you can see below, Mr. Eldin chose to run away from what was presented:

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

My response

Gale desperately promise to his readers that he will address my arguments due time, let us see if he will keep his promise, until now I believe he just escapes and tries not to mention anything about these “sections” and to pass it unnoticed the whole issue to the reader.

Gale must understand that I didn’t appeal to Sami Zaatari argument; I just referred it as a related article for the issue “Is Jesus God because he said I am Alpha and Omega” for the reader in order to see and comprehend more arguments against the “Alpha and Omega” issue. I made it crystal clear that I have my personal argument against the pathetic theory that Jesus is God because he said I am Alpha and Omega. You can find my argument in detail here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_and_Omega.htm

It is obvious that Gale cannot refute my argument and tries to respond to Zaataris articles instead addressing me, indeed funny. He has much time to address others but for me will address due time, hilarious! Brother Sami Zaatari did not even dignify him with a response because this man is a total joke. Please read again his article to see that Gale actually never responded to Sami Zaatari argument (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm and http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_and_Omega.html ). It is so clear that Gale tries to divert attention from my argument because simply he cannot deal with it.

Gale said:

Since he used “Alpha and Omega” as part of his argument by appealing to Zaatari, Mr. Eldin simply hasn’t responded to anything! You never use a source that you don’t want people to respond to in your article. If you do, people can challenge that source if they so choose. We learned this in College English 101! Unfortunately, Mr. Eldin seems to be ignorant of this fact which explains why he finds such a problem with me doing this. He continues by saying:

My response:

Again, I didn’t appeal to Zaatari’s argument I just referred it. I didn’t said that I am negative in receiving critics about my sources but this poor kid missionary can not realize that Sami Zaatari article is not a source but a related article of the issue “is Jesus God –Alpha and Omega” he cannot even make a distinction from source and reference and this thing actually makes me wonder if Quennel Gale ever attended in College education or not. What I am trying to point out is that he cannot deal with my argument. He concentrates so much about what other wrote and he escapes from my argument by saying that “will address it due time” when he actually has plenty time to address others, can you see how coward he is?

Gale said:

If you had read my previous article you would find why I clearly showed that “without father, without mother, without descent” doesn’t mean that Mel didn’t have a mother or father. I even presented a series of examples to illustrate my point which Mr. Eldin conveniently omitted and skipped over.

He is implementing the Islamic practice of concealment (taqiyya) and deception (khida) seeing that Islam permits its adherents to lie and deceive disbelievers in order to protect the interests of Muslims and to prevent the unbelievers from discovering Islam’s real agenda and from seeing its true face (1, 2, 3)? Mr. Eldin deceives his readers into believing that I somehow ignored his comments by omitting a portion of my reply. You can easily compare what he reproduced in his article with my paper to verify this for yourself. He is very well aware of the fact that if the knowledgeable reader saw my comments in its entirety they wouldn’t be so quick to assume that Mel literally had no mother or father!

Moreover, the author of Hebrews was aware of the hermeneutical principles used by contemporary Jews in interpreting the Hebrew Bible. He knew that his Jewish readers would not have erroneously assumed that he literally meant that Melchizedek had no mother or father but, as the late A.T. Robertson indicated, that Genesis simply didn’t provide any genealogy. The author saw this as deliberate and highly significant since he correctly reasoned that God inspired the author to present Melchizedek in such a way as to resemble God’s eternal Son. As another outstanding Bible exegete, John Gill, noted:

My response:

The only enemy of Gale here is the text itself! again we read:

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

Mel made like unto the son for priesthood purposes only, as the text says. As I mentioned to my previous article, we clearly see how the missionaries try to interpret the text in order to suit them, but they fail to realize that the very same text is their biggest enemy, the verse clearly state that Mel has no mother where Jesus had a mother, Mel had no genealogy, Jesus had two (contradictory to one another) Mel did not have end of life, Jesus DIED on the cross (according to Christians) I am asking again the coward missionary for third time WHO IS SUPERIOR, JESUS OR MEL? Of course Mel, is it so hard to see it from the text? Why all these missionaries try to give a contradictory exegesis or commentary against the verse? All the examples and series that the clown Gale presented to twist the truth FROM HIS OWN “HOLY” TEXT are refuted here, click to verify for yourself http://www.islam-planet.com/authors/ahmed_eldin/Is_Jesus_God_because_he_said_I_am_Alpha_and_Omega.html

Concerning taqiyya, is a Shia practice not Islamic one and about deception, I have dealt with that in detail which I proved beyond a doubt that the Biblical god is the one who actually deceives, and Paul was based upon a lie to propagate his pagan theory about Jesus http://www.islam-planet.com/authors/ahmed_eldin/Does_Kyrios_really_imply_Deity.html

Gale indeed ignored 80% of my response to him and beside that, he amazes me his hypocritical talent in which at least he doesn’t admitted! The coward calls the reader to see for himself but behind his PC he actually trembles if the reader makes that comparison. For God sake, see and compare how that coward skipped literally 80% of my article actually he somehow admitted that when he said “he will address me due time”.

Gale’s comments clearly contradict the verse of Hebrews. Gale support that Mel has actually Mother, Father, and genealogy where the verse clearly says the opposite

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

Gale supports Robertson who said that in Genesis we don’t have any genealogy of Mel, I am asking why? The reason Gale argues is that “to present Melchizedek in such a way as to resemble God’s eternal Son.” Therefore Mel, at least, is like Jesus and he shares some characteristics. One characteristic that he shares is that he is a priest like Jesus for ever and ever and easily we can say shares the supposed divinity of Jesus( “ Mel resemble Gods eternal Son”)

but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

But again the verse is so clear and in purpose the clown missionary desperately tries to hide the fact that someone is superior to Jesus. Isn’t amazing when Gale is refuted by his own source?

Then Gale desperately tries to post sources that actually contradict the text of Hebrews about Mel. This amature missionary does not realize that by posting all this sources actually proves that the text is WRONG about Mel. All the sources that he posts clearly says that Mel has a mother a father a genealogy and beginning of days and end of life but isn’t that a clear contradiction when the text itself testifies the opposite? Again we read about Mel:

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

Why the author of Hebrew chose not to clarify the issue from the first place to solve the problem? Gale must realize that even if he brings volumes of “proofs” that Mel had a mother, father, and genealogy he only damage his position by contradicting the text of the Bible which clears says that Mel had no mother, father, genealogy.

The missionary supports that I skipped what A.T Robertson said. I already refuted that part but the coward excluded my response. Following I paste AGAIN my response because it seems that Gale didn’t want his readers to notice my refutation against his favorite Scholar.

My response concerning Robertson argument about the word “afomoiomenos”

Let us address now his stupid questions:

1. Mel can be superior simply because he has no mother or descent; Jesus your “god” had all these. And if he was a copy as you support then his priesthood is same like Jesus, don’t forget that the verse states; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually this is for Mel not Jesus. Gale you just expose your ignorance and your immaturity on Christianity.

2. It doesn’t matter if he is identical or not, you claim that he is a copy and as a copy he shares his attributes, therefore he shares his Deity therefore his God, this the reason why I said that you invented a new formula for the stupid theory of trinity. By the way isn’t you Christians that say that Jesus is not the Father but SHARES his nature? Well in other words you claim a copy of the Father and this copy is Jesus. The same apply for Mel, and don’t forget that all these is yours hypothesis not mine.

3. Already answered above. You clamed that Mel reflect Jesus nature? The same you say about Jesus with the father, but this didn’t stopped you Christians to make him a God, why not also Mel that reflects the nature of Jesus if he is a copy? Again don’t forget that Mel is superior according to the author of Hebrews no matter what your Robertson or you say is crystal clear from the verse: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3

4. Robertson is not the evidence. Simply because I answered also to the nonsense of Robertson. And Robertson meaning has nothing to do with the text. He claimed and you clamed that Mel copy of Jesus therefore shares his nature, Jesus is God (according to you) therefore Mel is God as a copy.

Taken from: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_Omega_rebuttal_2.htm

I believe that is clear now who avoids answering and skips on purpose arguments that already answered.

The stupidity of Gale is revealed when he says:

With the foregoing in mind, it is very amusing to see Mr. Eldin trying to teach us what the Biblre and Judeo-Christian sources are really saying about Melchizedek in light of his blatant ignorance of ancient Jewish beliefs concerning this historical figure and the hermeneutical principles employed by the Jews in interpreting the Scriptures.

What makes this all the more amusing is that the early Muslim polemicists never used the example of Melchizedek against the divinity of Jesus. Nor do we find the Quran censuring Jews or Christians for deifying Melchizedek, even though it criticizes them for attributing divinity to Jesus and Ezra. Why no mention of this? Could it be that even Muhammad knew that neither Jews nor Christians understood these Biblical passages to mean that Melchizedek was actually a divine figure?

My Response:

I am only showing you the discrepancy that exists to your unholy book, nothing more. The author of Hebrews is very clear concerning Mel. He has no mother, no father and no genealogy there is nothing in the entire Bible that says the opposite. Gale by bringing “evidence” that Mel had mother, father, and genealogy actually contradicts the statement of the author of Hebrews who says:

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

So Gale feel free to choose between contradiction or the Author believed that Mel was a supernatural being. And please Gale; don’t rely so much on what the Jews say because will backfire to you concerning the divinity of Jesus. As you know Jews don’t believe that Jesus is God, not even the Messiah. Also if a Muslim apologist never used this argument about Mel, so what? Do you expect that Muslims apologists are like Christian missionaries that reproduce old and answered arguments? An exact example is you Gale. It seems that Gale is really bothered with that argument because it exposes further his ignorance and lack of argumentation.

Gale said

It gets even worse for Mr. Eldin since Hebrews has God calling Jesus God:

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

Something that is never said of Melchizedek. Now how does Mr. Eldin respond to this point? Look and see:

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

Notice his utter desperation and blatant hypocrisy. He first tried to use Hebrews 7 to disprove the Deity of Christ, but now seeks to discredit the testimony of this very same book when it refutes his entire case!

Here are the problems that Mr. Eldin faces. If he accepts Hebrews 7:3 THEN he must accept Hebrews 1:8 also. But if he rejects Hebrews 1:8 because it is written by Paul THEN he must also reject Hebrews 7:3 since this is also written by Paul. If Paul is a false Apostle then the idea that Melchizedek is superior to Jesus must be rejected since this also originated from someone who cannot be trusted to present the truth of God.

In other words, by maligning the Apostle Paul Mr. Eldin has actually refuted his own argument. He obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too.

We are omitting his points which have already been refuted.

My response:

I really don’t know why this missionary speaks so foolish. Does he believe in the first place that I accept the book of Hebrews as the word of God? Aren’t you Christians missionaries that try to argue from the Quran that Jesus is God, or he is superior to any other Prophet? But why you don’t accept the statement of Jesus in the Quran that rejects divinity and Prophesize the coming of the Prophet Muhammad. So why these double standards Gale?

Indeed I made a mistake because this statement (about Mel) is not even from Paul. The author of Hebrews actually is unknown!

Scholars say about the book of Hebrew "The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

Again this fool must understand that I pointing out the contradictions and the errors of his so called holy book. I don’t accept the Bible as the word of God but if you are going to present that same book as evidence then I am going to refute it, this does not mean that I also accept it as the word of God. Can you really see his stupidity?

Anyway, Jesus never claimed divinity or that he is a god that conquered a throne.

Gale said

Mr. Eldin has committed several fallacies which need to be addressed. First, he commits the fallacy of false analogy since Jesus isn’t merely a copy or facsimile of God, but rather he is the exact representation, the perfect imprint of God’s infinite and eternal essence:

“He is the radiance of His Glory and the exact representation/imprint (charakter) of His substance, who sustains the universe by his powerful word…” Hebrews 1:3

Note that the author didn’t use the word aphomoioo but charakter, a word which refers to the very exact, perfect replica of a thing. The only way for Jesus to be the exact representation of God’s being is if he is fully, completely and eternally God since a finite, temporal creature can never be the perfect imprint of God’s infinite and uncreated substance. Now had the writer said that Melchizedek was the charakter of Jesus’ being then Mr. Eldin would have had a case. But, unfortunately for him, that is not what the author wrote.

Secondly, he has erroneously assumed that just because two things or persons are similar they are therefore the same or identical in every aspect. Melchizedek sharing similar traits with Christ doesn’t mean that he is exactly identical to him in every way. Rather, as the author noted, Melchizedek’s similarities lie in the fact that Genesis portrays him as having no origin and as being an eternal priest, traits which Jesus truly possesses.

And we need to repeat this point again, since it is obvious Mr. Eldin has a hard time comprehending what we write; the point of the writer is NOT that Melchiz’edek is an eternal being. Rather, his point was that Genesis deliberately omitted the details of his birth, place of origin, death, genealogy etc. since God wanted to portray him as a picture of the One who is truly without origin, without genealogy (in relation to his Deity), having no beginning or end, namely the Lord Jesus.

My response

Again as I mentioned before, Jesus never uttered such words of blasphemy, these words come from the author of Hebrews not Jesus. Now let us reveal once again the ignorance of Gale. He said that “charakter,is a word which refers to the very exact, perfect replica of a thing” also he claimed that the word “ charaker has nothing to do with the word “ aphomoino” and “. Now had the writer said that Melchizedek was the charakter of Jesus’ being then Mr. Eldin would have had a case”

But his beloved scholar A.T Robertson actually contradicts Gale because he says that the word “ aphomoiono” actuallt have the SAME meaning with “charaker”

“Made like (apwmoiwmeno߼/B>). Perfect passive participle of apomoiow, old verb, to produce A FACSIMILE OR COPY, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. Unto the Son of God (twi uiwi tou qeou). Associative instrumental case of uio߼/B>.

Let the reader observe that the word aphomoiomenos, which is perfect passive participle of aphomoioo, literally means “A FACSIMILE OR COPY” of something that is original. Here is another source which confirms this point:

Strong’s # G871

1) to cause a model to pass off into an image or shape like it
2) to express itself in it, to copy
3) to produce a facsimile
4) to be made like, render similar (Source”

Let us see now the meaning of the word “ charkter”

carakthr
charakter
khar-ak-tare'

from the same as carax - charax 5482; a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving (("character"), the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or (figuratively) representation):--express image.

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

So as you can see above the words “aphomoiono” and “charakter” have exactly the same meaning, and Gale by saying “Now had the writer said that Melchizedek was the charakter of Jesus’ being then Mr. Eldin would have had a case. But, unfortunately for him, that is not what the author wrote.”

But have the same meaning and Gale erroneously thought that these two words are different, thus my case prevails.

Secondly Gale misinterprets me when he says “, he has erroneously assumed that just because two things or persons are similar they are therefore the same or identical in every aspect”

I never assumed that. I said what you and your scholar actually support, that Mel is a copy and as a copy he shares his nature:

“It doesn’t matter if he is identical or not, you claim that he is a copy and as a copy he shares his attributes, therefore he shares his Deity therefore his God” (this is what I said to my previous article)

I never said that Jesus and Mel are similar; I said that Mel is the exact Copy of Jesus and is superior from Jesus because he has no mother, father and genealogy as the text says

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. Hebrews7:3

Gale again repeats about Genesis that omitted deliberately the genealogy of Mel, as I said above, why? He said because to resemble with Jesus, thus I say he shares again his divine attributes. Gale must realize that in whatever angle you see it; you can help it by concluding that Mel is God and even a superior Deity than Christ (according to Bible)

In that Point Gale is totally destroyed, Gale said:

Mr. Eldin couldn’t have provided any greater proof that he should refrain from debating and return to whatever he was doing before he decided to become an apologist for this false, satanic Muhammadan cult. Here is what he conveniently overlooked:

After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you AND YOUR TWO FRIENDS, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." So Eliphaz the Temanite, BILDAD THE SHUHITE and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. Job 42:7-9

Mr. Eldin believes that God was only angry with Eliphaz even though the text went on to mention Eliphaz’s friends and even referred to Bildad by name! The passage also mentions that Eliphaz and Bildad did what God commanded them to do by sacrificing the bulls and rams so God would accept Job’s prayer on their behalf.

Let us again repeat the purpose for these sacrifices:

I am angry with you AND YOUR TWO FRIENDS, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly.

The question that Mr. Eldin needs to answer is why did Bildad offer up sacrifices if God wasn’t also angry with him? Isn’t this is clear evidence that Mr. Eldin knows absolutely nothing about the Bible or Christianity, and doesn’t have a clue what his own false religion actually teaches?

My response:

Note again how this coward missionary skipped again my argument and didn’t’ post it or answer it. Again I said to my previous article

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

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

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

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

(Job 25:4-6)

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

But the case here is that the verse does not accuse Bildad. He accused the friends of Eliphaz without mentioning them. If the Bible mention Bildad, that makes him not the friend of Eliphaz. Gale asked me “why did Bildad offer up sacrifices if God wasn’t also angry with him” So what? If anyone makes sacrifice do God does that mean that God is angry with him?

But again Gale didn’t respond as I said above

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

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

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

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

(Job 25:4-6)

Gale said

Mr. Eldin’s argument was that Jesus couldn’t be pure and clean because he was born of a woman. He then quoted Bildad’s words to show that, “no one born of a woman can be clean”. We showed that Bildad was wrong for what he said by quoting the verses where God rebuked him. Mr. Eldin objected saying that God wasn’t angry with Bildad implying that Bildad was therefore correct.

But he now just posted verses showing that there were plenty of people who were holy without needing to be born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, THEREBY PROVING THAT BILDAD WAS WRONG! IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS ACTUALLY ENDED UP PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT WHAT WE SAID ABOUT BILDAD WAS CORRECT AFTER ALL!

Note that:

1. Mr. Eldin claims that no man born of a woman is pure or clean.

2. We responded by showing that Jesus was born of a woman who conceived by the Holy Spirit, thereby insuring that he would be pure and clean.

3. In his haste to refute our claim Mr. Eldin provided examples such as Zachariah and others to prove that Jesus wasn’t the only who was pure and clean.

4. In so doing, HE ENDS UP REFUTING HIS EARLIER STATEMENT BECAUSE HE HAS NOW SHOWN THAT THERE WERE OTHERS LIKE JESUS WHO WERE PURE AND CLEAN! Hence, Mr. Eldin has established our case that Bildad was wrong!

What more can I say! My argument had nothing to do with whether there were others who, besides Jesus, were pure and holy. I was simply dealing with Mr. Eldin’s appeal to Job 25:4-6 to prove that NO MAN BORN OF A WOMAN IS CLEAN AND PURE.

And Mr. Eldin has the nerve to call me an amateur! For one to claim that, “no man born of a woman is pure and clean” and then come back and provide evidence of “men who are holy, pure and clean” is beyond laughable!

My response:

Once again the coward missionary proved that the Bible is not the word of God. And again he twisted my original argument. Gale tries to persuade the reader that my argument was that anything born of a woman is not pure. This was not my argument (despite the fact that it was approved by God according to the Bible). My argument was that the text testifies without doubt that Jesus is a WORM and does not worthy anything in the sight of God (according to the Bible) check again what I said:

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

I just provided evidences of biblical figures that born of women ONLY to refute the false argument of Gale in which he claims that only Jesus was pure form his birth. Again I pointed out the contradictory nature of the Bible and nothing more. Now if Gale has problem with that, is not my fault and he better have to look for another religion.

But amazingly this missionary does not stop surprising me. Actually he confirms my case because as he said

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

Now I am asking, who is refuting his own self? Easily we can say that Bildad was not speaking about the people that had the Holy Spirit, but for the common people (the majority born un-pure). Gale also fails to realize that even if one man born with the holy spirit that does not make him sinless or un pure because as Christians says ONLY Jesus is sinless, however I demonstrated in my previous article that also other figures born form the holy spirit but they committed sins and many times were not obedient to God. For example, according to the Bible the nation of Israel is called HOLY, Exodus 19:6, but all we know that Jews worshiped many idols and were not obedient to God. We must realize that when Bildad spoke these words were comparing man with God and not just mentioning the nature of a born person. However, Bildad said (and supported by God) that the SON OF MAN (Jesus) is a WORM and does not worth anything in the sight of GOD.

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

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

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

(Job 25:4-6)

Look the distinction that this verse provides. The man is a worm AND the Son of Man. In other words, we and Jesus are worms, indicating that God is superior to Jesus. Unfortunately for the Christians, Jesus also supported the words of Bildad by saying:

You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28

This is what Bildad implied, that God is superior than us and Jesus and we are like maggots in His sight (we are worms and the Son of Man a worm)

Gale said

Here, Mr. Eldin again commits a false analogy since Jesus isn’t merely a Son of God in the sense that the others were. Rather, Jesus identified himself God’s very own unique Son:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (ton huion ton monogenee), that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son (tou monogenous huiou tou theou). John 3:16, 18

The term monogenes literally means of sole descent, only one of its kind, unique. Thus, Jesus is the only Son of his kind, God’s Son in a unique manner, Son in a sense that no one else is. The word used for ONLY is Monogenes.

Monogenes

Definition:

1.single of its kind, only a. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

b.used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

This word differentiates him from anybody else in the Bible. A perfect example of this word’s significance can be found in Hebrews 11:17-18:

“By faith Abraham when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only (monogenes) begotten son of whom it was said, IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.”

Here we see that Isaac was called Abraham’s only begotten son not because he was his only child. Rather, Isaac was his unique son because it was only through him that Abraham’s seed and God’s covenant would be established.

In a similar manner, even though there are many in the Bible that were called sons, only Jesus is said to be God one and only unique Son.

Even the Jews realized that Jesus was claiming to be a Son in a very unique and special way which made him equal to God:

“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

Note how those who were completely familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and knew full well that God had many sons still realized that Jesus’ claims were unique since he was clearly placing himself on par with God!

My response

Gale use arguments that expose the contradictions of the Bible and create more problems for the Christian doctrine. For example, by calling Jesus “monogenes” and by appealing to the word “monogenes” for Isaac, thus Gale implies that Jesus is the son of the Father in the same manner as Isaac was the son of Abraham. Of course the Christians don’t accept that Jesus is the son of the Father in a biological or physical way but they claim that Jesus is the son of God in a spiritual way. Unfortunately for the Christians and especially for Gale when they use the word “monogenes” actually they expose their true meaning of the phrase “the son of God” which in reality means that God had sex and begot a son (Gods Forbid!) in the same manner as Abraham had sex and he begot Isaac. So as you can see by appealing to the word “monogenes” its only backfires to the Christians badly in the issue of the sonship of Jesus. Gale’s source supports my argument:

Monogenes

Definition:

1.single of its kind, only a. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

So if the word “monogenes” is viewed in relation to the parents and the child, I am asking: When Jesus called God his Father was in a spiritual way (metaphorically speaking) or in a physical way (literally speaking)? If the Christians answer that Jesus called Father his God in metaphorical way (spiritual) they contradict the word “monogenes” and secondly we have dozens of sons of God in the bible which claim also to be the only sons.

And you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus said the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Exodus 4:22

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 2 Samuel 7:14

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 1 Chronicles 22:10

They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. Jeremiah 31:9

In that point I want to ask Gale, how Jesus is the “monogenes” (which by the way the true definition is the following because Gale once again forgot to post his source)

monogenhV
monogenes
mon-og-en-ace'

from monoV - monos 3441 and ginomai - ginomai 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).

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

How Jesus is the monogenes(the only son) if God claims that Ephraim is his “ firsborn” ?

Will Gale now accept the spiritual meaning of the word monogenes or the physical? By using the spiritual one then is a not big deal because we all are the sons of God in that way. If he means in a physical way as the word monogenes imply (which used also to describe the Isaac, the son of Abraham), then Gale try to show us that God had sex and beget Jesus In the same manner as Abraham beget Isaac, a concept that Holy Quran condemns:

Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): "He is Allâh, (the) One.

Allâh-us-Samad ( ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÐì íÕãÏ Çáíå Ýì ÇáÍÇÌÇÊ ) (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks

He begets not, nor was He begotten

And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him (Soura Ikhlas: 1-4)

Finally Gale conclude his desperation by quoting the verse

And argues that

“Even the Jews realized that Jesus was claiming to be a Son in a very unique and special way which made him equal to God

But the ignorant missionary doesn’t know that Jesus himself refuted the Jews when they accused him for deity.

31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?

33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?

35. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36. Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:31-36)

Amazingly Jesus responded to Gale and to each and every one that believes that Jesus is God or that he claimed divinity.

Very logically Jesus argued by posing the question if I blasphemed that I call my self son of God, then how about the word of God which you Jews boasting that you own, calls you GODS( psalms 82:6). Again we see that Jesus by claiming to be the son of God is not something unique and refuted the Jews by their own scripture implying once more that he is inferior to God.

As you read, it is proven beyond a doubt that Jesus is not God. Moreover Gale exposed once again as a desperate amatuer Christian missionary and refuted badly by the Grace of Almighty Allah, the Lord of Jesus.

wilder « WordPress.com Tag Feed

When a missionary tries to respond Part 4