Islam and Christianity A Common Word

Electing Mitt Romney who gives 10% of tithes to the Mormon Church.

2012-01-20T23:50:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Why does Mitt Romney have money in the Cayman islands? Is Bain enterprises a front for the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0120/Why-does-Mitt-Romney-have-money-in-the-Caymans-Two-potential-reasons

Is America ready to vote for the Church of Latter Day Saints? What great choices for the Protestants this election.
1) Mitt Romney: Mormon.
2) Newt Gingrich: Roman Catholic.
3) Rick Santorum: Roman Catholic.
4) Ron Paul: Protestant, Baptist.

But we better not vote for Ron Paul, because he doesn't want to send U.S soldiers to die for Israel. Zionist have more say so in the church than Christ Jesus does. ;)

Newt Gingrich gives story of leaving Protestant Baptist to become Roman Catholic

2012-01-20T23:30:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb:

Newt Gingrich: From Baptist to Roman Catholic.

A vote for Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum is sure to give America stronger times to Rome. Maybe this is what America needs? America needs Rome to give it direction? Who knows.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144080998/gingrichs-catholic-journey-began-with-third-wife

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/newt-gingrich-catholic_n_1127152.html

All the proof you need that Evangelical Christians are war mongering and hate filled.

2012-01-20T22:57:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, ( May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

All the proof you need that Evangelicals are war mongering and anti Christ.

This last week the Talibangelicals or 'evangelicals' were in a fervor to vote for the 'Anti-Romney' candidate.

How that vote turned out is quite shocking and rather disgusting.

Here is the breakdown of the votes the born again Christian 'leaders' gave: Out of 122 votes, Santorum (57), Gingrich (48), Perry (13), Romney (3) and Ron Paul (1).

Ron Paul whom delivered 4000 babies and who has been married to the same woman for 54 years gets one vote! Yet, Gingrich twice married and claims to be a "family man" is supported over him? Even Mitt Romney a Mormon was given 3 votes over Ron Paul (a Baptist).

Why would two Roman Catholics and a Mormon score higher than a Protestant Baptist Christian?

Simple: Ron Paul does not teach a doctrine of empire. He does not fall into the agenda of Christian Dominionist and Christian Reconstruction-ism. Very dark political agendas in which the Christian masses are used and duped into furthering globalist and elitist agendas (especially against Islam & Muslims).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/17/vote-rigging-alleged-as-christian-right-decides-to-back-rick-santorum.html

Why? One thing and one thing only people.... WAR! The Evangelical Christians believe that this is what the Bible teaches them.

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27)

This teaching abrogates the prior command:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

But even than we get a glimpse of darker things to come: 'Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

Jesus is commanding his followers to be as wise as serpents. You know like the one that deceived Adam and Eve. Be cunning, so when it is prudent one should be like a sheep among wolves, be as innocent as a dove, but when the time comes.... "bring these enemies of mine, who do not want me to reign over them. bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney all of whom have not served in the U.S military, and have children that do not serve all want America's children to go and fight 'the enemies of freedom'. The 'enemies of America'. The 'Muslim jihadist'. When in reality the real true blooded Americans need to wake up to the dangers of these wolves in sheep clothing.

They want anything but peace. They want to carry out the Zionist agenda that will eventually destroy America.
Hopefully there will arise a group of Christians who can interpret their scriptures with a new hermeneutic.

A school of Christians who believe in peace and love and out reach. A school of Christians who can re-interpret the scripture (or at least explain away the violent passages) so that there can be peaceful co-existence with other faith traditions.

Or we will get more of the following:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue

Hopefully the Christian will prevail over the Christianist.

"Obviously there is a difference in meaning between the adjectives Christian and Christianist. Thanks to Jon Goldman, an editor at Webster's New World Dictionaries, I have the modern coinage of the latter with its pejorative connotation. ''I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right,'' wrote the blogging Andrew Sullivan on June 1, 2003, ''who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/magazine/15ONLANGUAGE.html?pagewanted=print

May Allah open the hearts and minds of Christians every where. Islam means peace. Christianity means follower of Christ. As said I hope that a re-think can be given to the Christian tradition of violence, power and empire. My hope is that Christians can focus on the spiritual aspects of their faith, and show why their theological suppositions are better than Muslim theological suppositions. This would be my sincere hope.

Jewish groups slam Santorum for Jesus comment

2012-01-11T21:06:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Jewish Groups Slam Santorum For Jesus Comment.

Did you get the memo folks? You're supposed to talk about Jesus just enough to get the people revved up against Muslims, but not so much to make us Jews uncomfortable, see? There's a careful balance in all this.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=252595

Of course it is fine and dandy if Zionist Jews have dual allegiance and have dual citizenship (Both Israeli and U.S). The Zionist Jews sure love all the money the Futurist and the Preterist pump into Israel.

Thanks for the money, but you can keep your Jesus!

Zionist Jew Joseph Liberman Proposes Bill to Strip Americans of their Citizenship. Evangelical Christians remain silent

2012-01-11T21:00:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Zionist Jew Joseph Liberman Proposes Bill to Strip Americans of their Citizenship. Evangelical Christians remain silent.

A Zionist Jewish American proposes a law that would allow the government to strip ANY AMERICAN OF THEIR U.S Citizenship (thus stripping them of all rights).

Yet Evangelical Christians remain completely silent over this. Why?

Is it not funny that it is a Zionist Jewish American who sponsors such a bill? I thought Arabs and Muslims were the bad guys?

Thinks that make you go hmmm...

/http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction

January 6, 2012

First, Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act, sections of which gave the President the authority to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans without trial or charge. The language was revised because of strong condemnation from the American people. But now a new bill has emerged that poses yet another threat to the American citizenry.

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” L
egally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.
The new law would change a part of US Code 1481 which can be read in full here. Compare 3166 to 1481 and the change is small. The new section makes no reference to being convicted as it does in section (7). So even though the language of the NDAA has been revised to exclude Americancitizens, the US government merely has to strip Americans of their citizenship and the NDAA will apply. And they will be able to do so without convicting the accused in a court of law.

I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial. This certainly must be questioned by Americancitizens. The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.

To read the full text of the bill, go here.

Does Christmas really mean 'Happily Christ Dismissed?'

2011-12-24T02:03:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all)

The Shocking Origins of Christmas!!!

This blog considers the dark origins of the Christian religions most cherished holiday namely Christ-mas.

Allot of Christians are not aware that December 25th is no where in the Bible nor is there any encouragement to celebrate December 25th as Jesus birthday. A birth day that in reality celebrates the deity Mithras and not a virgin born Messiah.

Most Christians are not even aware that Orthrodox Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on January 7th and not December 25th as is the most popular choice.

THE FIRST CHRISTIAN AMERICANS THE PURITANS BANNED CHRIST-MAS

Many do not know that the early Christian 'fathers' of America the 'Puritans' also forbade the practice and celebrate of Christ-mas.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christmas/DankoChristmasBanned.htm

Why would the first American Christians do this?

Because they knew the truth. The truth that not a single one of Jesus disciples celebrated Jesus birth day on December 25th. The truth that December 25th or ANY DATE for that matter is no where mentioned in the Bible in connection with Jesus birth. Lastly and more serious of all that in reality December 25th was what the Romans called " Dies Natalis Solis Invicti " The birth day of the unconquered Sun! December 25th was the birthday of the Sun God Mithras. This is also the winter solstice. What does Winter Solstice mean? It occurs around December 21st and every day after this day there is a little more light than the the day before it. To those who worshiped Mithras-the sun god it would seem that the eternal god of light has conquered darkness.

Jesus is reported to have said,

"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.

"MERRY CHRISTMAS" WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Most people think that the phrase 'merry Christmas' means 'Joy! The Birth of Christ! It could not be further from the truth.

The word "Merry is simple to define. It means to be happy, joyful and/or having a light-heart.

How about the word Christ-mas? By definition, it means "death of Christ".

All honest truth seeking Christians should read on, however if you are not honest in wanting truth on this matter you might as well stop right here and continue on with your ways.

I have found many Christians who after hearing the factual presentation and truth say 'So What!' and 'Who Cares!' They are obviously not discerning with the spirit and follow their own desires! Allah mentions about such people in the Qur'an when he says,

"When it is said to them: "Follow what God has revealed:" They say: "Never!" we shall follow the ways of our ancestors." What! even though their ancestors were void of wisdom and guidance? The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of knowledge."

(Holy Qur'an 2:170-171)

The word Christmas comes from 'Cristes Maesse", an early English phrase that means "Mass of Christ." It is interesting to note that the word "Mass", as used by the Roman Catholics, has always been rejected by the Protestants such as Lutherans, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and so forth.

The word "Mass" is strictly a Catholic word and so is the word 'Christ MASS'. So as a side note all those Christian denominations that hate on the Catholic Church become Catholic for a day on December 25th! It's the day when all the "wayward daughters" of the Roman church return to their mother," the scarlet harlot"!

Mass from the Latin 'missa' simply means dismissal. So literally merry Christ-mas would mean if literally translated as 'Happy Christ dismissed' you know like when the teacher says 'class dismissed'. So do Christians really want to go around saying, "Jesus dismissed"?

Dismissed means 'removed'. And is this not telling? There is nothing Jesus like or Christian about the whole celebration. A person who was born in a manger, who taught simplicity and humility and love for fellow man. Now we have in place is a tree, bright lights festive songs and possibly the BIGGEST MATERIALISTIC HOLIDAY ON EARTH!

Now in a religious usage mass means a "death sacrifice." The impact of this fact is horrifying and shocking; for when millions of people are saying , "Merry Christmas", they are literally saying "Happy Be the End of Christ" or "Merry is the Death of Christ". For Muslims to say this is blasphemous even with the best of intentions. The Holy Qur'an asserts in 4:157 Jesus Christ did not die!

So when Santa Claus the fat man in the red suit starts laughing boisterously and he says, "Ho ho ho Merry Christmas!" What could be so funny about the following picture?

Than you place your children in the arms of a man who promises them gifts that he never gives! What false hopes is that?

Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christ Mas! Imagine streets filled with people drinking beer, dancing and cheering with festive lights all around. Than take a good look at this picture to my left? Do you not have any honor or shame? How sick can people be?

This must be one of the most sadistic celebrations of all time!

"On page 537 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says, "In the Christian law, the supreme sacrifice is that of the Mass." It goes on to say, "The supreme act of worship consist of essentially in an offering of a worthy victim to God, the offering made by a proper person, as a priest, the destruction of the victim." The Latin word for victim is "Hostila" from which the word "host" is derived. The Mass, by definition of those who coined the word, is a sacrifice involving a victim. There is no other meaning for the word "Mass" or "Christ-Mass".

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/m/mass,sacrifice_of.html
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/c/christmas.html

(Holy Qur'an 2:170-171)

Now do not get me wrong. This is a great time for friends and family alike to share in the joy of one another. But to claim this day as the birth day of Jesus is simply fallacious.

Herman Cain Outshines Christ Crucifiction.

2011-11-23T00:40:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-holy-land-experience-130621445.html

Herman Cain and the Holy Land Experience

By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Mon, Nov 21, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- By the time Herman Cain took the stage, Jesus had already been crucified, resurrected and returned to Earth to collect the faithful once that day.

Cain made a campaign stop Friday at The Holy Land Experience, a Christian-theme amusement park in central Florida where visitors pay $35 to watch a reenactment of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ just minutes from Disney World.

In the park, which is run by the religious television station Trinity Broadcasting Network, employees dressed as shepherd boys, pharisees, Roman soldiers and merchants from first-century Israel lead the faithful on tours through the re-created streets of old Jerusalem, perform re-enactment shows and serve as baristas in the coffee shop. Over the course of a day at Holy Land, you can take communion--fed to you from the hand of a bearded actor playing Christ with flowing brown hair--browse an impressive collection of early Bibles, rock out to praise-song karaoke, get baptized and even have your picture taken with Jesus on a Harley.

And on this day, you can meet Herman Cain.

Entering the park, I'm greeted by a girl in her 20s wearing a traditional Jewish headdress tapping away on a computer keyboard with freshly painted nails. A poster with Cain's face is taped to the front window. She rings up my ticket and I stumble upon a first-century city street swarming with actors dressed in ancient garb.

"Crucifixion's at 2:30," a robed disciple/greeter says as I walk in, pointing toward an amphitheater. "You'll want to get there early to get good seats."

"Will we have time to see Herman Cain?" I ask.

"Definitely," he replies. "Cain won't start until Jesus returns, which will be after the resurrection."

The presentation that follows, which takes the audience through the scenes of the Passion story--Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas' kiss of betrayal, the trial in front of Pontius Pilate, the flogging, the placement of the crown of thorns, the walk down the Via Dolorosa, the crucifixion, and finally, the resurrection--culminates in front of a life-sized model of Herod's temple in Jerusalem.

On the steps of the temple for the grand finale, angels wearing capes prance to the sound of trumpets that welcome the Second Coming of Christ. Jesus emerges from the back and strides triumphantly toward the temple wearing a flowing robe and a gold crown of rubies. Meanwhile, another angel lassos Satan with a gold chain and hauls him away by the neck. The blaring music crescendos as the crowd stands up to cheer the return of the king, and Christ restores himself as the eternal ruler of the universe.

After Jesus disappears into a cloud of smoke at the temple door, a plain-clothed man directs the crowd to a nearby theater, where a cardboard cut-out of Jesus wearing a jeans with holes in the knees greets everyone at the entrance. Now that Christ has returned, it's time for Herman Cain.

Inside the auditorium, shepherds escort people to their seats. There's a lectern on stage surrounded by a wall-to-wall painting of landmarks from ancient Jerusalem with Herod's temple in the center. A singer kicks off the program with praise and worship songs, and Cain enters through a side door withTBN founder Jan Crouch and his new Secret Service detail.

Cain, a layman pastor and gospel singer, appears right at home as he walks up to the stage in his suit and signature gold tie.

"You all have to forgive me, but this feels like a pulpit and I am a preacher," he says during the talk. "It's just a natural thing when I get into this setting, ya know?"

"Preach it, brother!" a man on the front row yells.

Cain speaks for nearly a half an hour and despite a couple fleeting "999" mentions, keeps his speech to topics of faith and his recent battle with cancer. He begins with a story about how he knew he would survive when he discovered that his physician was named "Dr. Lord," that the hospital attendant's name was "Grace" and that the incision made on his chest during the surgery would be in the shape of a "J."

"Come on, y'all. As in J-E-S-U-S! Yes! A doctor named Lord! A lady named Grace! And a J-cut for Jesus Almighty," Cain boomed.

He did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon's name was "Dr. Abdallah."

"I said to his physician assistant, I said, 'That sounds foreign--not that I had anything against foreign doctors--but it sounded too foreign," Cain tells the audience. "She said, 'He's from Lebanon.' Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, 'Don't worry, Mr. Cain, he's aChristian from Lebanon.'"

"Hallelujah!" Cain says. "Thank God!"

The crowd laughs uneasily.

After a mini-campaign stump speech, Cain wraps with a diatribe against liberals, the media and "Beltway elites" that he says are trying to stop him.

"They don't like the fact that I'm not afraid to say God Almighty Jesus Christ!" Cain says.

"One of the biggest crises in this country is a moral crisis," he goes on to say. "We've lost our moral compass. We need to get it back. One of the reasons I'm running is because I plan to bring that moral compass back to this country."

When he finishes, Cain heads out the door and his motorcade rolls away past the replica Damascus Gate in front of the park.

Huge Blunders I Have Made On This Blog and Things I Need to Change.

2011-11-18T03:24:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you.

Huge Blunders I Have Made On This Blog and Things I Need to Change.

#1) I do believe that I take time in reviewing debate material. However, the manner in which I post it is absolutely horrible. So for that I apologize to all and sundry. In this case while looking at what I wrote in commentary about Abdullah Kunde and Jame White they are both deserving of more than my horrible post.

My spelling is quite atrocious. So is my grammar, and syntax. (As pointed out by Ken Temple)

#2) I have made emendations to the entry 'Jesus is not the name of God'. I also argued (rather poorly) that the name Jesus is an etymological hybrid of Latin and Greek which means 'Earth Pig'. After reflection as well as taking a proper chiding from both Christians ( Marcus MCelhaney) and Muslim (those who have sent me private e-mails) I have removed that material. I will no longer advance such a claim.

#3) Some time earlier this year I made a comment on Dave Armstrong's blog that if James White ever embraced Islam he would immediately be buttressed by oil money. Now I was using a hyperbole. I believe at one point during his apologetic career James White was a sincere man. A man trying to advance the claim of Christianity. Yet it is not something I believe no longer to be true.

#4) I removed a blog entry in regards to James White's sister (Patricia Bonds) accusing James White's father of molesting her as a child. I have removed that post. That is a person matter between James White, his sister and their past.

#5) I removed a blog entry entitled 'An Uncommon Calling' Where I discussed the sexual orientation of David Wood (a Christian apologist who debates Muslims and Atheist). His sexual inclinations are his own business. They have nothing to do with him or his apologetic.

"Turn towards Allah, O believers, every one of you, so that you may be successful." [Holy Qur'an 24:31]

"Ask your Lord for forgiveness and then turn in repentance to Him," [ Holy Qur'an 11:3]

"O you who believe! Turn in sincere repentance to Allah." [Holy Qur'an 66:8]

"Ask forgiveness of your sin, and for believing men and women." [Holy Qur'an 47:19]

"And: That God may forgive you your former and subsequent sin." [Holy Qur'an 48:2]

‘Allah loves those who do repentance ‘Tawba' [Holy Qur'an 2:222]

So Allah-willing moving forward I am going to try and make a better effort on the presentation of blog entries.
I hope to make things more relevant to the issue of Islam and Christianity. I will also at times be posting information about Judaism-where it is concerned in the context of Islam & Christianity. Allah-willing.

Up coming debate: (Salvation) in (Christianity) and (Islam)

2011-11-14T02:02:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful).

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

I thought you readers maybe interested in this upcoming debate: It looks quite interesting. Insh'Allah for those sincere Christians who are looking for peace and certainty in their hearts, may Allah bless this event! Ameen!

(Salvation) in (Christianity) and (Islam)

Paul Bilal Williams vs Rev Dr. Steve Lathan.

Category of Mistakes -By Abdullah Kunde

2011-11-13T16:25:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Category of Mistakes-By Abdullah Kunde.

What follows is a reflection by our respected brother Abdullah Kunde on James White insistent claim that he (Abdullah Kunde) kept making category errors. A claim that I too feel holds not much water.

The following is from his blog: http://ideologiaeislam.wordpress.com/page/2/

باسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

A category [mistake] occurs when someone acts [or speaks] as though some object had properties which it does not or cannot have. The reason why it cannot have those properties is because the properties belong to objects in some other category or class. For example:
Colourless green ideas alertly sleep.
The above sentence commits at least two category errors. One is the attribution of the property of colour (green) to something immaterial (ideas). Obviously colour is a property that ‘ideas’ cannot have. Secondly, the attribution of a manner (alertly) to an action (sleep) is also a category mistake. This is because sleep cannot have the attribute of ‘altertness’, as one cannot sleep and remain alert.

The above has been adapted from an about.com article pertaining to category mistakes. In simpler terms, a category mistake is a fundamental error that occurs when things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another.

In a recent blog post regarding our dialogue last Monday, Dr. James White proposed that I made this error in some of my responses to him. Here are his suggestions in their full context. I will just consider the sections that are relevant to this discussion:

This allowed us to get into the equivocation and category errors that, I believe, clearly came to light in Abdullah’s position. Specifically, anything that is not God is not “perfect” in his thinking, and hence, to take on a human nature would require God to become imperfect. But clearly this is in error,for that would mean God could not create anything perfect!Can God create a circle that is perfectly circular? Of course, but, from his viewpoint, if it was truly perfectly circular, it would have to be God! This clear confusion of categories leads to the assertion that a human nature, even if a perfect human nature is still…imperfect, because it is not divine.

The emphasis is mine, so that I can divide this post into it’s component parts.

First, Dr. White correctly identified my statement that ’Absolutely Perfect’ is something that can only be ascribed to God Almighty. On the night, I gave several points for consideration to differentiate between an ‘Absolute Perfection’ and an imperfection. I focused heavily upon God being without need (which is ‘Perfect’) and human beings having needs (which present an imperfection).

Dr. White then asked me to if there are ‘perfect humans’ or if the creation was made perfect. I pointed out to him that, in my limited understanding, there are two uses of the word ‘perfect’ and that Christians are conflating them. They are:

1) Perfect, in the absolute sense. This can only be applied to God, for the reasons I suggested, primarily His being Self-Subsistent (without need).

2)Perfect with respect to a genus. I said that ‘perfect’ could be applied to created things, but only within their own context. I said that a car may be called perfect if it is considered to be superior to all other cars. I agreed that a human could be called perfect with respect to other humans, however I affirmed that perfect with respect to a genus is not the same as absolutely perfect, because it can only ever be applied within the category it is referring to (not in an absolute or even comparative sense).

Dr. White did not propose his perfect circle ‘problem’ during the debate, however, it astounds me that he has failed to see the category mistake that he has made in presenting this as an objection to my assertion. He has suggested that God can create a perfect circle, which we would entertain as possible, and thinks that this defeats my argument. However, this would only be the case if he affirms that a perfect circle is a more perfect creation that any imperfect human being (which, according to the Christians, would be any human being other than Jesus).

Of course, Muslims would never agree to the above, because firstly it makes the same basic category mistake I accused Dr. White of on the night. During the debate, I suggested that he is comparing one genus (the Divine) to another genus (the creation) and affirming that the mutually exclusive attributes that define these as separate genera may exist within one genus (the Divine) and that this is a category mistake.

In this instance, where he uses a circle as an example, his argument would have to read:

God is perfect therefore God’s creation is perfect therefore God can take on the attributes of His creation.

Muslims would illustrate that the simplification of the above statement would be:

God and His creation are the same.

Which I doubt any Christian would actually suggest (even though the sum of their statements does invariably lead to this conclusion).

So, basically Dr. White has totally misrepresented my position. I did not say God cannot create something that is not perfect respective to its own genus. In fact, I unambiguously outlined the two ways one may use the perfect as an adjective, one of them being perfect in comparison to other things of like nature.

God can certainly create a circle that has perfect mathematical properties. But is it self-subsistent? Did it originate from itself? Will it last forever? Does it have knowledge, will and power independently of everything else? Of course not. Therefore, it is not ‘absolutely perfect’, but rather perfect with respect to other circles.

In fact, the very statement that Dr. White suggests I am restricted to, that, ‘for a perfect circle to exist, it must be God’, is precisely what Christians themselves are saying:

“God is by nature perfect and can take on a perfect human nature and remain in His perfect Divine nature simultaneously”

We say that this is the category mistake, plain and simple.

God is the Necessary Existence, and is; Uniquely One, Dissimilar to the creation, Without Beginning or End, has; Power, Will, Knowledge, Life, Sight, Hearing and Speech and is totally Self-Subsistent.

Lets call this, ‘category A’ or, ‘the category of Divine’.

Any created thing is: limited, dependent, has a beginning and an end, powerless, ignorant, reliant in; speech, sight and hearing.

We shall call this, ‘category B’ or, ‘the category of creation’.

Now could category A form itself from components of category B or vice versa? No. Then this is a category error.

Could category A be a subset of B or vice versa? No. Another reason why this is a category error.

So, I leave Dr. White and his followers with the following options;

1) Demonstrate where I have made a category error in defining the difference between Divine Perfection and something being perfect with respect to its genus and not conflating these terms.

2) Accept that the logical outcome of your proposal is that ‘God and His creation are one’.

3) Agree that I made no category error and that, in fact, it is the Christians that must explain how they are not making this error.

قُلْ إِنِّي عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّي وَكَذَّبْتُم بِهِ مَا عِندِي مَا تَسْتَعْجِلُونَ بِهِ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلّهِ يَقُصُّ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْفَاصِلِينَ)

Say: “Behold, I take my stand on a clear evidence from my Sustainer-and [so] it is to Him that you are giving the lie! Not in my power is that which [in your ignorance] you so hastily demand: judgment rests with none but God. He shall declare the truth, since it is He who is the best judge between truth and falsehood.” (TMQ 6:57)

I look forward to the ongoing discussion, God willing.

Abdullah Kunde vs James White: "Can God Become a Man?"

2011-11-12T03:08:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Can God Totally Dwell Inside of the Total Human Being: James White vs Abdullah Kunde.

http://neutralbayanglican.org.au/?p=1508

Allah-willing I will be commenting more on this remarkable debate soon. I think this was an excellent opportunity for James White to make a very strong case for one of Christianity's most central doctrines. I also felt that James White did a very good job in making the very best case possible he could for the ideal that total God could take on the form and indwell in total man.

Even though James White gave it everything he had, for me his presentation was absolutely unconvincing.

I will say that James White made the best closing arguments I have ever heard him make in any debate. He clearly out shined Abdullah Kunde in the closing remarks.

That being said, Abdullah Kunde had mastery of the Q & A session. Many times Abdullah Kunde turned the question of James White back on him for reflection.

Especially on the issue of God taking on ignorance. James White beat a hasty retreat. This was an over all excellent discussion. Again I will be commenting more soon. (if Allah-wills)

This is an a general over view of the debate that transpired between our respected brother Abdullah Kunde and James White.

James White: Initial presentation over view and comments: My comments in bold. What you will find is not me going through every point by point detail. I am just giving an over view of the points they went over. For me the meat of the real issue was addressed during the Q & A where they could directly interact with each other.

James White begins with the presuppositional nature of the question.
For James White this is 'the fundamental difference that divides Islam and Christianity.

Rather or not God can or did become a man.

James White asserts that the scriptures provide a rather clear definition of the doctrine of incarnation.

The prologue : John 1:1

John 1:14 'became flesh'

"God invaded his own creation" - (rather odd way to put things but that's o.k)

Phillipians 2:5-9 "Kenosis"

"he made himself NOTHING" "enters into human existence"

1 person "two complete natures" "divine and human"

"How do you Crucify the 'Lord of Glory" 'not intermingled' "the two natures are intermingled"

The person 'Jesus' came into existence as a point in time. (as a point in time?)

Ignatius 'There is one physician of flesh and spirit, and God in men, passable and impassable'

Melito of Sardis "he who hung the heavens in earth is hanged"

James White makes the blunder of saying that the collection of the New Testament was closer than the collection of the ahadeeth ( Abdullah Kunde did a great job refuting this mistake)

word and wisdom -reflected in the targums Isaiah 9:5 (masoretic text)

James White digresses to discuss the Holy Qur'an and the alleged son-ship of Jesus.

Not having a son -Not really our subject for this evening...

The Qur'an says God cannot have a son (19:82-84) -God has a servant

112: Begots not and there is none begotten.

James White asked the local Imam if the verses in Al Iklas refer to Christianity.
(Abdullah Kunde also pointed out to James White the problem in going down to ask the local Imam for his opinion on matters.)

James White says, "that the incarnation does not necessitate a fundamental change in the divine being, but a fundamental change in the divine experience." (This is problematic. If God can experience something he has not before does this mean that gains new information.)

God interacts with us in time. Christians believe in the Immutability of the Creator.

For James White the central question is:

"Does God as the Creator the power, ability, capacity to join a human nature to himself if he pleases to do so"

"God did not die because God is the essence and not the one person"

"God is three persons not One." "The essence did not die, but a person who shared the essence"

"But than again God did not die because God is three persons in one essence."

This is extremely interesting! For the following: http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A62860827 Is now James White interested in endorsing Bart Ehrmans view that Hebrews 2:9 that Jesus "died apart from God" James White was not speaking of Orthodox Christian creed even when he made the statement he did above. That is the problem with any version of the Trinity (Eastern, Western, etc). The more you explain it the more it falls into the one of the many camps Christians claim it is not apart of (Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Subordinationism etc)

Lastly James White mentions the story of "Christians persecution in the Roman state for 2 and half centuries"

Basically the old apologetic view of: "Would they die for a lie"

===================================================================================

Abdullah Kunde begins his presentation: My comments in bold

In the beginning Abdullah Kunde cuts right to the chase. The Qur'an' -absolutely denies that God could become a man.

"Those who say that Christ the son of Mary deny the truth"

Islam will categorically deny that Jesus is God and that God can become a man.

hypostatic union-

Islamic definition an essential attribute, -exist, neccessary existence -the thing that causes everything that exist

necessary, oneness, no beginning, no end, dissimiliar from everything else, will, power, knowledge and life, sight, hearing, and speech, self-subsistent

silly logical fallacies:

One essence (substance) that substance is with in three hypostasis (three distinct persons)

Jesus is fully God and fully man (not mixed)

If God is bound by the same things as his creation

There is nothing similar to his similarity

silly logical fallacies:

Can God make a square into a circle but keep it a square

Can God make another God.

Can God make a stone that you can't move

Holy Qur'an 2:255

Why would we would reject the Incarnation...

What caused the union? An action of the word alone? Why cannot the father and the spirit have a uniting as well?

If it was the logos alone (they have independent power). If the Hypostasis can do things independently of the other this is problematic for the Muslims.

If it's an action of the substance and not the hypostasis (they are redundant)

God did not take any offspring for had they been each deity would over come one another limitless is God.

The nature of the messiah's birth is problematic.

When did the divine enter into the human?

"Was it before the birth, during the pregnancy or after the birth"

before the birth....

"God is limitless in his glory he but says to it be and it is."

When you say, 'Jesus died' what do you mean by this?'

fully human die or the god die (did the divinity die?)

Did all three die? dependent and not divine

If the substance is dependent it is not divine

4:157 (Holy Qur'an)- Jesus did not die.

Ressurrection he didn't die

the individual hypostasis are dependent (resurrection)

It is not enough for Christians to say that Jesus is Lord. It is more appropriate for Christians to say that Jesus is Lord, and Jesus is a man.

Jesus is eternal and temporal,

he is eternal and created

Jesus is a man, Jesus is Lord.

If he is truly both, than what do Christians not acknowledge that all the time? (very good point by Abdullah Kunde)

did the deity and the human eat together?

who rose from the dead (the human or the divinity)

I and the father are one - was that the human talking, or the divinity' (the father and the spirit must have human natures)

Jesus said worship my lord who is my sustainer and your sustainer

Qur'an about Jesus (Don't listen to what I say because I might be a good looking guy) :)

==================================================================================================

James White rebuttal section:

Here I believe in James rebuttal section he didn't make a strong enough case for his proposition: or refuting Abdullah Kunde. Instead he went for allot of asides.

The Qur'an says that Allah would make the followers of Jesus victorious-

So where is the evidence that anyone didn't believe this? (believe that Jesus was not God, or the divine Son etc)

Where are the people who accept what the Qur'an says about Jesus but not the incarnation.

(James White catches himself because he is fully aware that there are such people. He tries to anticipate by naming some such groups)

James makes a blunder in saying that Abdullah Kunde was trying to seperate Jesus two natures.

In fact Abdullah was simply stating why such things would be problematic.

James White says that Jesus (God did become tired)

Jesus put himself in a position to be subordinate to the Spirit of God

Didn't do things that the Gnostics said he did "which interesting the Qur'an says he did"

Like taking little birds and making them alive (said with the same condescending tone you would expect from either an atheist or a person who is clearly frustrated and not confident in explaining their position)

On what consistent basis can White affirm presuppositional beliefs for himself (James White), but not allow it for the Muslims?

"They can do as what they as one divine God has chosen to do in accomplishing" THEY?

"very interesting that Abdullah cited text that were directed towards polytheism"

"Is the islamic objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the Trinity" "Allah knew what the trinity was"

"If he wanted to refute to do so he could do so accurately" -Same arguments.....again....refuted over and over... in fact it is very sad and dishonest of James to bring up talking points that Abdullah Kunde has already addressed here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/quranic-doctrine-of-trinity-are-there.html

In fact you can see James White use that same tired, refuted argument in his debate with Abdulalh Al Andalusi here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/10/big-homoousia-debate-abdullah-al.html

I will repeat here what I have done in the blog entry above: Trinity. This assumes on James White's part that there is an accurate model of the Trinity to critique. It assumes that the Trinity is a correct to begin with. So much of James White' argument can easily be dismantled when one understands this.

For example that would be like James White saying 'The Qur'an does not give us an accurate description of a three sided circle.' Well this would assume that a thee sided circle is something accurate to begin with. All that is happening is James White is presupposing a doctrine that came about only after much intra-Christian debate which he admits to be revealed only'between the Old and the New Testament' to be accurate.

It is troubling that James White would repeat this age old 'argument' first crafted by Samuel Zwelmer and re-used and re-hashed time and again after Muslims have given answer to this.

It reminds one of Dan Barker being corrected on certain points about Bible contradictions only rehasing it 'for a fresh audience'.

"We do believe that is the case in eternity future" -Jesus united to a human being!!! Huh? So James White now believes in a that the Godman will exist in eternity

"a point in time"

Thetokos -God bearer

did divinity die'-what does it mean to die? (yeah what does that mean -White doesn't explain)

death is not the cesation of existence. (cease to exist,)

Jesus died ( the god man gave his life) the human nature that dies upon the cross < WHAT!!! THE HUMAN NATURE THAT DIES UPON THE CROSS...(NOT THE BEING(GOD)) (I'll be sure to keep that one for another blog entry. Allah-willing)

===========================================================================================================================

Abdullah Kunde begins his rebutal: My comments in bold

substance (godhead)

hypostasis (the three persons)

who was he obedient to (it was pointless) sending himself, and obedient to himself

and if he is obedient to others (is dependent)

Arius is post 200 years..

Why doesn't the Qur'an address western trinitarianism

Qur'an did not encounter Western trinitarianism (jacobites, nestorians) etc...

The idea that we would argue against Chalcedonian Trinitarinism is a mute point. (Very excellent)

Kitab Al Athar, and Muwatta of Imam Malik (the "death" of Jesus and the death of Muhammed comparative times from when the Hadith and the New Testament were being penned down)

50-60 years.. far out by a 100 years is absolutely incorrect. (White's point that the hadith were collected only 100 years after the death of Muhammed (saw) was completely refuted by Kunde.)

reference to an encounter of local Imam. (local Imam down at a Mosque has no religious skill, other than memorizing the Qur'an another good point by brother Abdullah. ) etc..

this idea that quoting a local Imam has some merit. (would be like quoting a local perish point)

"power, ability and capacity"

God "does he have the power, ability and capacity" to create another God?

The word car can we re-arrange so it has 20 different letters...?

"Can God create a a rock he cannot move?"

Not trying to imply White has a deficientt intellect.

James White is essentially foisted a created ideal upon the uncreated.

Ebionite information comes from Trinitarian sources (Those who considered themselves to be Orthodox Christians)
In other words how do we know that we are getting the real scoop on what the Ebionites actually believed. Good point by Abdullah Kunde. I wonder what White's response to that will be in the future. He didn't respond at all to it in the debate.

Non Canonical sources -the Qur'an "The author of the Qur'an was doing a pretty good job of the rounds on early Christian belief"

On what consistent basis can James White allow presuppositionalism to prevail in believing in the New Testament text, without having the original manuscripts, yet deny Muslims a presuppositional view that says we too do not have the original Injeel (Gospel) but it is quite possible that parts of this Injeel (Gospel) ended up in sources that Christians today consider non-canonical?

On What consistent basis is presuppositionalism allowed for the New Testament but not for the Qur'an?

Was it an act of the hypostasis or the act of the substance---

(one or more of the hypostasis)

"Could the father have the capacity, ability, power"

Was Jesus dead or alive. "Muslim scholars of creed differentiate between God existing and God having life."

"Do the dead have power, do they have will."

Lazarus responded to a command. This is much deeper than I have time for at the moment. Suffice that a person can look into it here: http://www.sovgrace.net/theological-essays/39-salvation/59-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

Individual freedom, and inter-dependence (how would you differientate for those terms) Very good question that White did not respond to.

=====================================================================================================

Q & A session: In which I felt Abdullah Kunde absolutely dominated.
James White cross examine Abdullah Kunde

When I ask the central question and your saying, "I have diminished capacity I think we are talking past each other."

Actually White is taking offence even though Abdullah clearly stated, "Not trying to imply White has a deficient intellect." White took something to heart that he did not need to.

Illogical fallacies...

Q: James White, "How it involves a logical fallacy"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "God has certain attributes which we consider essential without beginning and without an end."

Q: James White, "What essential attribute do you see the question assuming?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "All of them". "(dependent time, sustenance, contained by other dimensions)"

Q: James White, "You understand the question to transmute into a human being?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, " Islamic definition" (presupposition that is defensible)

Q: James White, "Did Allah create the human nature?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "Your asking me can God be God if he takes on attributes that are ungodly."

Q: James White, "It seems as if you are saying that God is ceasing to be God" - No this is not what Abdullah is sound like saying, this is what you (White) would like him to say that.

A: Abdullah Kunde, "Your asking if God is omniescient and takes on the ignorance" -

Did James White listen to Abdullah Kunde?

Q: James White, "So perfect for you can only be applied to God." .... Well duh! hehehe

Q: "Do you believe that all the messengers were sinless?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "absolutely".....

(someone in the audience goes hmph!) excellent! The audience is thinking! I can tell as well that it was not a Muslim. :)

Q: James White, "Was Muhammed sinless?"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "absolutely."

Abdullah Kunde, "Your applying temporality to God."

Christians have yet to show me any example of God speaking to his creation while being outside of his Creation.
If Christians do not believe that God created time, than this means they do not believe that God created everything.

I tried to get a Christian apologist Anthony Rogers to address the question and he blatantly refused.

You can see that here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/09/allah-cannot-reveal-himself-correcting.html

James White: "When he created the universe" His actions in a point in time.

Q: James White, 'Do you believe the universe is eternal"

A: Abdullah Kunde, "of course not"

Abdullah Kunde "when we say God acted at a point in time it appears that way from our perspective."

James White"When it came into existence"
Abdullah Kunde "WHEN" "if your going to apply time to it" It was the way he intended it at that time.

==================================================================================================

Abdullah Kunde cross examine James White

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Does the decree change"
A: James White, God's decree action decree in time."

The decree does not change- We do not apply to time.

James White- "Until it happens in time is it real?"
-James White ask a question , when he is supposed to be answering. (Breaks rules of debate)

James White, "I see a difference in logic"

"Its imperfect because it's temporal" -if God comes into creation (time is a creation) So than he becomes temporal and is also imperfect by White's own definition!

White takes away from Abdullah Kunde's question time to address the audience....(Breaks the rules of the debate yet again)

Fundamental ontological difference between the Creator and the creation.

Presuppositions about belief in God.

James not being consistent in his approach

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Does God have the freedom to cease to exist?"
A: James White , "no!"
Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Why not?"

Abdullah was doing an excellent job of getting James White to probe his own theological presuppositions.

"God has the freedom to act in time out of his love.".(for example is one presupposition) but form the Muslim theological presuppostion and evidential proof text what this entails is taking on imperfection.

Abdullah Kunde reflects upon James White's theological presuppositions about the divine.

"Freedom to be eternal and temporal at the same time"-Abdullah Kunde
"and the freedom to be both living and dead at the same time"-Abdullah Kunde

James White interrupts "at the same time in which nature"

Surely anyone can see that White really took liberties when it was time for Abdullah to cross examine White. Abdullah was clearly the better man here in terms of his patience and sticking to the rules of engagement

===========================================================================================================================

James White cross examine Abdullah Kunde part 2

"Let me ask some of the other questions" -So why leave from the central question? If you came all that way to Australia to have a meaningful debate on the most central issue that divides Islam and Christianity?

Q: James White, "What do you understand that Christians understood John 10:30 to be saying?"
A: "Abdullah Kunde, "That he is of one being as the Father."

"Jesus is not making an ontological claim" - Is James asking a question or giving a sermon?

The clay birds-in gnostic sources , Jesus speaking in the infancy gospel,

Q:James White, "Do you believe the Qur'an draws from those sources?"
A: Abdullah Kunde, "It is coincidence-pure coincidence."

Q: James White (series of questions), "Who was Jesus obedient to?" "What do you see as an objection." "If Jesus voluntarily does this or that ...would he be an atheist?"

A: Abdullah Kunde: "Jesus made a decision and he's just following it through."

Kunde seeks clarification, "Was the plan of salvation of the substance or of the hypostasis?"

(Kunde has the right to seek clarification) (Kunde was charitable to white during his Q & A) So White could do the same.

White's point stands only from the theological presupposition that he stands on.

James goes back to the point about the Messiah being brought into being, He conviently side steps Abdullah Kunde's remarks about Jesus being obedient is virually meaningless. White side stepped Kunde's point about Christians using the hypostasis and the substance when it is convenient for them.

Does like White hearing himself talk? Is he giving a speech or asking a question?

White at 1:41-1:42 minutes starts to become testy. He has to understand as do the Christians that Abdullah is not being snarky, or mean spirited. He is asking what so many in the Christian faith eventually begin to ask themselves. Who and What is actually saying, doing, coming or going on at any given time in the western/eastern/any version of the Trinity!

So James White becomes testy and snarks that Abdullah is confused and he finds the same confusion in the Qur'an.

Why is James White so uncomfortable in dealing with the issue? This alone is proof enough that no one needs to call into his 'dividing line' when he can't even answer a question or clarify a position during a debate!

"Clarify for the purpose of the question" I think White relishes that stuff. Again I don't see someone sincere in a debate. He's a snarky self starter who is honestly lucky that he even gets to debate people like Bassam Zawadi and Abdullah Kunde and others who outclass him in every way.

Kunde makes the excellent point that Western Trinitarian Christians and Non Western Trinitarian Christians and not Trinitarian Christians (Eastern, Western) or any stripe do not agree on the same points.

White goes on by pressing Abdullah that does anyone who doesn't believe in Muhammed (saw) would they be Muslim. He eventually ask are the Ahmadi considered to be Muslims.

White's point is valid here.
The reason I say it is a valid point is because Abdullah Kunde said that the ideal of hypostasis and being in the 'godhead' is difficult enough for Trinitarians and non Trinitarian Christians to agree upon.

The reason White's point is valid is because he is basically asking 'where do you draw the line'. This is a fair and good question. Again I think that White is letting valuble time slip away to get to the substance of the debate. I don't know if the audience was too happy with that. Yet, if your going to go down the path of who is the true Christian or true Muslim, James White has an obviously good point here.

From White's presuppositional view, basically the real Christians believe in Western Trinitarianism, etc...

So again I think this point is not helpful to the theme of the over all debate. Yet, since White is running out of time and doesn't have much substance to his presentation he is happy to chase after any red herring.

=============================================================================================================================
Abdullah Kunde cross examine James White part 2

Abdullah Kunde brings the debate back into focus. He is trying to get White to give a clear and consistent understanding of the his understanding of the Trinity.

White again, tries to side step the question and being disingineous. Because, he than tries to throw in there that the tired and refuted argument that the Qur'an in Surah 5 says that we accept the (22 or 27 books of the New Testament.)

James White instead of giving a clear and consistent presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, goes on the attack of Islam being 500 years after Jesus etc..yet, he tries to talk about Jesus being God.

Again James White proposes to debate about the Qur'an and the New Testament etc...however White again not feeling comfortable to answer the questions.

"I'll read your book when you write it"-James White says to Abdullah Kunde.

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "You say the Trinity was revealed between the Old and the New Testament?"
"If you are to back up the principle of Sola Scriptura, how is that you can maintain the argument that the Trinity is revealed between the scriptures?" (This was personally helpful for me. I do recall reading/or hearing that White said that). Last year my good friends Ken Temple (a Christian friend who is doing some soul searching) and David Waltz who has an excellent blog asked me the source of my quotation on this. I did not have it so I had to retract the statement. I am happy to see it brought up here.

Q: Abdullah Kunde, "Were would you draw the line between who is a Christian and who isn't?"

1 hour and 51 minutes into the debate:

A: James White, "incarnation, death and resurrection (historically those things take place between the writing). New Testament is written until 30-40 years after Christ."

James White , "Chalcedonian definition are not a negotiable thing." "Nestorious believed that Chaldecon vindicated him."

James White, "Arianism is not Christinaity, "Utickism" (spelling?) (where you have a mixture) I am not going to kick them out of the kingdom." "monophysite trinitarinism" - difference between knowing and willfully rejecting them, knowing and ignorance..

James White says that monophysite Christianity is Christian!!! (better save that one for a future debate)

=============================================================================================================================

JAMES WHITE CLOSING REMARKS:

James White really shined ruing his closing remarks. From a Christian perspective and as a person who is a former Christian I can absolutely relate to it. I can imagine myself a Christian in the audience nodding my head and saying 'Amen' or feeling that my guy (James White) represented me well.

I think for the most part the Christian walks away feeling that James White represented them well. White makes a plea for Calvinism that the spirit of God has to change a person's heart (regeneration) however he doesn't explain if regeneration happens before faith, or does it happen simultaenously with faith (he has refused to debate fellow Calvinist Bob Ross on this issue).

You can see Bob Ross comments here:

James is trying his dead-level best to carve out for himself a reputation as a "debater" who whups up on the "Arminians," but I wonder how he would fare against a Confessional Calvinist? Could he successfully defend Fort Pre-Faith Regeneration?

I saw somewhere that he said he has had many "debates," all of them with debaters who are not Confessional Calvinists, but he has had no debate with a Confessional Calvinist. Wonder why?

Could he defend his Hybrid Calvinism against Confessional Calvinism? If a Confessional Calvinist paid to go on his Cruise, do you think he would condescend to debate with a Confessional Calvinist?

Do you think James will ever really establish himself as a legitimate, respected debater if he does not take on a Calvinist who rejects his "born again before faith" palabber? -- Bob L. Ross

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/james-white-and-rossphobia.html

For example fellow James White has refused to debate fellow Calvinist Bob Ross on this issue of regeneration before fait. He has been ducking Bob Ross for a long, long, long time.

In fact Christians will tell me the reason he doesn't debate it is because it would not be edifying. I think it would be extremely edifying.

Crucifiction -debate. White claims to have the high ground but did horrible in his debate with Shabir Ally!

You can see that here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html

(Yet white made a challenge to white to debate New Tesament and the Qur'an).

"Can't God do more than Abraham."-James White

The problem with this is that James White believes that Abraham can do anything outside of the power of God! So that was a very strange statement coming from a Calvinist.

"Abdullah has a good bit of Aristotillian philsophy going on there." James White has a good bit of Platonic philosophy going on in his doctrine.

=============================================================================================================================

ABDULLAH KUNDE CLOSING REMARKS:

In history this was the norm. (For Christians and Muslims to debate)

"John of Damascus a Christian Priest -made strong claims against Islam."

Yahya ibn Adi "wrote a book why the Islamic understanding of God is illogical" the book was printing and distrubting in Muslim lands.

"St. Francis of Assisi -engaged with Muslims."

"It's not a new thing, no its not we just have to pick this back up."

"Ibrahim wanted yaqin (certainty)!"

"We can gain certainty, by eyewitness, irrefutable irrational, or from direct experience."

Abdullah Kunde makes a very beautiful point to counter Whites closing " Can't God do more than Abraham?"

He mentioned the story about how Abraham wanted certainty! Excellent!

"Our faith is based upon certainty." "We believe you cannot build certainty upon sand (very good point and counter to presuppositonal apologetic)"

"Christian belief is a belief built upon a sandy surface."

"Certainty and Faith is combined." (That is the ideal of Islam)

"We do not have a belief, you have an affirmation." (you do not affirm something on the basis of sand or uncertainty!)

The Christian theological presupposition of the Creator, "It is imposing a created ideal upon the creator."-Abdullah Kunde
"It is basically saying that God cannot approach us without a mediator." -Abdullah Kunde.

"That God has to become a man, places a limitation upon man."-Abdullah Kunde

Abdullah Kunde, "I am a gnat compared to James White" mash'Allah humility! :)

"I hope you all return home safely and go in peace." "Thank you very much!"

Presentation: James White excellent.
Presentation: Abdullah Kunde excellent.
Cross Examination: Abdullah Kunde wins hands down. White was put on the defensive and at times can be seen as being testy. Abdullah Kunde answered the questions with resolute calmness.
Closing remarks: I would say that James White out shined Abdullah Kunde. James White had strong Christian emotional appeal and he really pandered to the Christians in the audience. However, if you pay close attention Abdullah Kunde was not just pandering to a Muslim audience. He put things in such a way that he has the Christian thinking; especially on the issue of certainty!

Conclusion: Abdullah Kunde wins this debate due to his excellence at cross examination.

Beautiful Call to Prayer Inside of Church (along Rabbi and Priest)

2011-11-11T21:45:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Very Beautiful Call To Prayer

You may also be interested in seeing:

"The Popes respect for Islam: Muslims and Catholics together"

here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2011/01/popes-respect-for-islam-and-catholics.html

You may also be interested in seeing: 'Jewish Rabbi declares Islam mankind's original faith'

here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/11/rabbi-declares-islam-mankinds-original.html

You may also be interested in seeing: "What was the religion of Abraham" and looking into the book by Dr. James Talbor "Restoring Abrahamic Faith"

here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-was-religion-of-abraham.html

"Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do you know better or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of what you do." (Holy Qur'an chapter 2 verse 140)

Bart Ehrman and Daniel B Wallace Debate The New Testament Text.

2011-11-10T04:59:00.000-08:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

The Trust Worthiness of the New Testament. Erhman vs Wallace.

I want to say from the beginning I absolutely love Daniel B Wallace! The man is amazing! In fact he gave us (Muslims) a very counter argument to use against the deity of Christ Jesus!

By the way I do not want to misrepresent Daniel Wallace or say that he does not believe in the deity of Christ. I simply want to say that he showed that a very common argument advanced by Christian apologist is fallacious!

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-jesus-does-not-know-everything.html

It is very important that we have Christians like him who give Muslims very useful information. It is eye opening. If you read this blog post I would highly recommend to the Muslims and all the Christian truth seekers to read this one as well.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-about-that-p52-manuscript.html

It is very important that people realize that when the Christians talk about these thousands upon thousands of manuscripts that they have to actually put that statement into context.

For example would it sound more or less impressive if I mentioned that my thousands upon thousands of manuscripts (many of them) come 400-500 years after Christ Jesus lived? Or what if I mentioned that many of my thousands upon thousands of manuscripts came 700-900 years after Christ Jesus lived? So the above article deals with this p52 manuscript.

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places." [1]

I am sure you have heard Christians making the claim that the Gospel of John was written several decades after Jesus and so were all the others. Such claims are unsubstantiated by any real textual evidence. As a matter of fact, today we know that the OLDEST text we have is dated more than 100 years after Jesus(125 to 150 CE to be more precise). It is not even a complete text. It is nothing more than a horribly worn out fragment labelled p52.

“The oldest fragment(P52), found in a mummy cartonage, contains a small portion of John 18 and is dated ca. 125.” [2]

References:

[1] Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus(2007). HarperSanFrancisco. p. 10

[2] Richard N. Soulen & R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. London: Westminste John Knox Press. p. 128.

This must be very delicious information for those Christians who deep inside hunger for fulfillment and 100% certainty.

So the Christian camp (Protestants) have been divided into two groups when it comes to the core issues of Christianity:
1) Presuppositionalists They go by faith. They dont' go by evidence. This particular view is attractive and more air tight. Why? Because more often than not it coincides with the view of Calvinism that God has already ordained whom will be saved and who won't. So there fore no amount of evidence or skepticism will make or break someone's faith. If God wants you to go to heaven you will believe no matter what the evidence because you have faith.

2) Evidentialists. They go by the evidence. Their position (That of William Lane Craig, Craig Evans, Mike Licona, Daniel Wallace etc) will be come less appealing to Christians as time goes by. Why? Because in a nut shell it is asking Christians to be 87% certain in their faith!

Can you imagine that! Being 87% confident or 'reasonably sure'. So what they will try and do is show that they have more evidence than the Muslim, or the Agnostic or the Atheist (on the resurrection, crucifiction, biblical manuscripts) etc..

Now again because I can easily be accused of bias (being a Muslim) let me quote to you what sincere Christians said who attended the debate and why I find it problematic. (By the way I intend to purchase the debate and listen to it. Allah-willing).

http://www.davidnormanblog.com/ehrman-vs-wilson/ (should be ehrman-vs-walalce, however the blogger has not corrected this ...yet)

Now this was one of 1500 at the debate and says about the position of Bart Erhman:

"Many of our copies (he preferred to use Mark’s Gospel as his primary example) came after the 4th Century. In fact, the vast majority of the manuscripts we have today originate from the 9th Century or more recent. He has little to no desire to credit the early copyists of the New Testament text with any sense of care or caution. He argues that the earliest copies we have (300 years after the original was penned) reveal that early copies were rushed and poorly edited. Only after the passing of time did the copyists (or scribes) give increased attention and caution to ensure the accuracy and precision of the text."

Daniel Wallace and his position:

"Wallace proceeded to argue that two extreme attitudes toward the New Testament’s reliability are beyond justification and offer little to no help in the conversation: absolute certainty and radical skepticism."

"On the other hand, Wallace admitted that while we don’t have any hard evidence, we have mountains of soft evidence. And while we cannot have absolute certainty (there simply isn’t any to be had), we have probability. And based upon the data, all of the probability leans toward the reliability of the New Testament text."

Now I can tell you if what that blogger said is true about Wallace position I am deeply troubled as a Muslim. As a Christian I don't walk away from such a debate with any confidence at all!

If Wallace says the choice is between 'absolute certainty' and 'radical skepticism' I don't see why and how he can call Bart Ehrman a "radical skeptic"! In fact if you don't have any 'hard evidence' and it's true that you only have 'copies of copies' and that indeed the vast majority of manuscripts we have today originate from the 9th century or more than this seems to me that Bart Erhman falls into the exact same camp as Daniel Wallace.

Now if not someone needs to explain why not! Erhamn want's 100% certainty. For Daniel Wallace one of the greatest Evangelical Christian scholars of the New Testament that is just "too extreme" to ask for!

Wow!

In fact I fount it amusing that the blogger would say,

"Ehrman is passionately unsure and skeptical in regards to the trustworthiness of the New Testament text. In fact, when asked what would be a credible enough source for him to believe, he responded with, “A first-generation copy within a week of the original penning of the New Testament book (or letter).”

"That’s not too much to ask for is it?"

Now why would it be too much to ask for? Are we not talking about the All-Powerful? The Sovereign? The Majestic? The Creator who has a clear record of his entire creation down to the minute detail? Is this not the God who gives life to the dead? The God who through Moses parted the seas?

I guess maybe it is too much to ask for or Evangelical Christian standards of The All-Powerful God have certainly diminished!

So now let us also look at another Christian ( a girl who has been Orthodox, Catholic, etc) assessment of the debate shall we?

http://wellthoughtoutlife.blogspot.com/2011/10/bart-ehrman-vs-daniel-wallace-is-text.html

So there was very interesting reply by one of the people who in the comment section as follows:

EricW said...

Kacie:

While I agree in large part with your comments, I think it's important to mention Ehrman's point that it appears that the earlier the scribes' work was, the more prone to errors or variants, and that to me sort of tipped the debate more towards Ehrman than toward Wallace. I guess it depends on how one reads or understands the debated question: "Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament?"

I think Wallace would argue, and Ehrman would agree, that we have a lot of evidence to support the belief (or conclusion?) that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct from the manuscripts, Church Fathers, etc., is almost certainly very close to, if not identical with, what the various authors originally wrote.

The point I think Ehrman was making was that combining
a) the facts or evidence that the earlier scribes were the worst copyists, with
b) the long (time-wise) gap between the oldest largely extant mss. and the time the originals were written,
makes it unknowable what may have been added or omitted. (And because of things like the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending of Mark, we know things were added.) Hence, we can't say (and hence "trust") that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct is what the authors originally wrote.

The other point Ehrman made was that NT textual critics no longer talk about restoring/recovering "the original text," and haven't used that terminology for 20(?) years. Rather, they talk about restoring the text as it was in the 3rd(?) century. While that text is or would be or would become our New Testament text, one shouldn't assume that such a reconstruction is identical in wording or content or length to what the original authors originally wrote.

If I recall correctly, the answer to one of the Q&As indicated that the reliability of what we have in the Church Fathers (which are some important witnesses to the text in the 2nd and 3rd century) is difficult to determine. I suspect if much of what we have of those Fathers is in Latin that was translated from Greek, there will always be a problem knowing what wording a Church Father actually had in front of him.

Also, I think Wallace mentioned when discussing the Synoptic Problem - again during the Q&A time, I think - that he was thinking that perhaps Matthew and Luke had two different versions of Mark. (Both Wallace and Ehrman affirmed Q, I believe.) I'd have to hear the tape to be sure. That should raise some questions in persons' minds about what, then, is "The New Testament Text," at least as far as Kατα Mαρκον is concerned.

Thanks for a great blog write-up!

So now we know that we have evidence that people did add text to the New Testament. Text that was considered cannon up until very recently. It has only been in the last 50-70 years that the Christian tradition has cast aspersions upon Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 etc...

So there is the smoking gun.

Also if Daniel Wallace does agree with Bart Ehrman about Q (sources) this is indeed a very tantalizing tid bit to Muslims like myself and the the esteemed Shabir Ally (May Allah continue to benefit us by him).

In fact just look at the way Daniel Wallace speaks about the Bible itself. Just read the following:

http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

"(2) Mark 10:18/Matt 19:17/Luke 18:19—“Good teacher . . . Why do you call me good?” (in Mark and Luke) vs. “Teacher . . . Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matthew). The text, as Mark has it, might imply that Jesus denies his own deity. It is apparent that Luke did not read it that way, but Matthew probably did. Indeed, in the Holtzmann/Streeter view, Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently of one another. Thus what might offend one would not necessarily offend the other."

"It is apparent that Luke did not read it that way, but Matthew probably did." We as Muslims are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is behind this?

2. Was “Q” a Written Source?

Scholars have presented four primary arguments that Q was a single, written document.

a. The Exactness of Wording

Many common pericopae between Matthew and Luke have identical or near identical wording, such as is common to triple tradition material. If the exactness of wording in the triple tradition argues that Matthew and Luke used a written document—namely, Mark—as the source, it would seem that double tradition exactness would argue for a written document shared by Matthew and Luke—namely, Q. However, two points militate against this to some degree: (1) There are not nearly as many pericopae in Matthew-Luke as there are in Matthew-Mark-Luke (or Matthew-Mark or Mark-Luke). (2) Several of the pericopae shared by Matthew and Luke have quite dissimilar wording. Thus, Q does not altogether parallel Mark either in quantity (number of pericopae) or quality (identical wording). The evidence, on the whole, argues that Q was both a written document and oral traditions.

Again people when I see people like, Daniel Wallace, Mike Licona and Craig Evans make some of the claims they do I say, 'Praise be to God that I am a Muslim!'. What a great day to be a Muslim! As I said in a previous post. Christianity is imploding upon itself. All the best arguments against the foundations of Christianity are coming from the Christians themselves!

I really hope that those sincere Christians who thirst for the divine and long to have a relationship with their Creator will be guided to Islam. Those who want to worship the one and only God and not a composite deity composed of parts. Those Christians who are not happy with 2nd best but want 1st place in the kingdom of heaven. Those Christians whom are doing soul searching. Those who do not want mere 'probability' or"87% certainty" but 100% truth. I pray that their eyes and hearts will be opened and they will be guided to Islam! Amen!

"Have they not traveled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to feel and ears which to hear? For indeed IT IS NOT THE EYES THAT GROW BLIND-BUT IT IS TH HEARTS, WHICH ARE IN THE BOSOMS, THAT GROW BLIND" (Holy Qur'an 22:46)

"Kick Em When Their Down" James White attacks Robert Morey.

2011-11-05T23:22:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

"Kick Em When Their Down!"

Not only is James White a narcissist it is clear as day to me that the man is an opportunist as well. Is it not interesting that back when I started to post the video debates between Robert Morey and Jamal Badawi (whom both Christian and Muslim) were with-holding from the general public that Mr. White suddenly goes on a tirade against Robert Morey.

So finally it dawns on James White that the ministry of Robert Morey is through. When White was doing the rounds with Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics and Mormons it was Robert Morey who was stepping up to the plate to debate with the Muslims.

So after I release the debates on my blog site here I can tell you what happened.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/dr-robert-morey-fleeing-legal.html (In fact look at the month of May and you will see many entries concerning Robert Morey).

The man who absolutely dotes on White (Sam Shamoun) got on the horn (called up White) and said hey look thegrandverbalizer19 has the debates up at his blog! So notice that White's remarks come up in June. (A little late to the party eh White?)

White didn't pay it any attention at first. However, he was curious what Morey was up to. After realizing that it is true that Robert Morey's ministry is finished and he is wanted by the State of California for questioning by authorities White (being the opportunist that he is) jumped all over the opportunity.

I mean after all isn't White a whistle blower of sorts against Ergun Caner? Wrong! It was Muslims who that Ergun Caner's story didn't hold up. The Christians started to catch on and the SBC when it to cover up mode.

After all wasn't it White who took Walid Shoebat to task for saying 666 = Allah? (an absurd claim to rest assure).
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3664

So in order to look relevant and to look as if he is the no.1 Christian apologist debating Muslims White just couldn't help him self.

After smacking his chops in the most unsavory manner Mr. White went after the scraps of Robert Morey that were left.

I bet that made Mr. White feel really tall.

So here is the source: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2011-06&catid=12

Under the title:

Yesterday on the Dividing Line: The Dumbest Thing Ever Said about Islam, and Calls

06/24/2011 - James White

I had not intended, at all, to discuss it, but I got into the following quotation:

First, as I wrote in my book, How to Win the War Against Radical Islam, the war against the Muslim Jihadists will be long and costly and will not be won until we bomb the Kabah in Mecca. Islam is based on a brick and mortar building that can be destroyed. They pray to that building five times a day, make a pilgrimage to it, run around it, kiss a black rock on the wall, then run between two hills and finally throw rocks at a pillar. What if that building, the Kabah, was destroyed? They could not pray to it or make a pilgrimage to it. The old pagan temple of the moon-god, al-ilah, is the Achilles' heel of Islam. Destroy it and you destroy Islam's soul. [ Reference ]

I discussed how I had been twice asked about this viewpoint while traveling and speaking, and how it had struck me as the single stupidest suggestion I had ever heard. I had shown it no mercy when asked, and honestly in the five minutes before the program started I happened across an article in my RSS feeds that identified its source: Robert Morey. Well, as little as I want conflict with Bob Morey, I could not help but point out the quote and express my ardent feelings about it. At least I'm consistent. So I gave a little background on the reasons why I have never read a Bob Morey book on Islam (I read his much older book on death and the afterlife, and parts of his book on atheism as well) and why I have never used him as a source. I discussed the "Moon God" theory a bit as well, and then took calls, the first of which was on what "moderate Islam" is, the second on Shai Linne's song on particular redemption:

Atleast Mr. White 'is consistent'! Is that the same Mr. White who argued during a debate that 'Allah repents'?

The same Mr. White who is cohort Sam Shamoun grossly misrepresents Islam on a daily basis while White does little to nothing to take him to task?

Ladies and Gentleman this is simply a case of 'Kick Em When There Down!'. White will do anything and exploit any opportunity (even fellow Christians) to try and prop his own ministry and image up.

Biblical Inerrancy and the Mike Licona Controversy.

2011-11-05T03:03:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (Peace be unto you and the Mercy and Blessings of God)

Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy

Why is it when I go away things become very interesting? The Christian tradition is without doubt imploding upon itself. The cracks have always been there. The foundation of Christianity has never been solid to begin with.

This my dear sisters and brothers, fellow Christian truth seekers, this information is riveting!

In fact I also want to buy a copy of Licona's book!

This is very serious.What the Christians will eventually do is have Mike Licona recant his position or threaten to boycott him and/or expel him from various teaching institutions.

So if Licona recants from his position it is now transparent that is not due in part because of some self realization on his behalf. Oh no indeed. It would be because pressure has come to bare down upon the man and at the end of the day ladies and gentleman we have to fill our rice bowl.

I have always respected Mike Licona and I think he represents the Christian tradition well. However, if Mike Licona is going to be attacked by Christians for stating something after serious research and consideration one wonders if those same Christians will be consistent in dealing with Christian Giant Craig Evans.

What do I mean by this? Well fellow Christians write of him (Craig Evans) the following:

"Craig Evans says that Jesus never spoke the words John says he did and that the community themselves simply affirmed things they had no evidence for. By so doing, he is denying the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture: inerrancy and infallibility because the Scriptures are assumed to contain no error...inspiration because all of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). I will tackle more regarding the Greer-Heard Conference in coming posts.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2011/03/christian-giant-craig-evans-jesus-did.html

Brothers and sisters in Islam it is a good day to be a Muslim.

When are we going to see a debate between Norman Geisler and Craig Evans on the issue of innerancy?

When you look at Norman Geisler's attack upon Licona it's absolutely disingenuous in the way he deals with Ergun Caner. It is simply inconsistent and frankly very sad.

Than if you say the way that James White goes after both Geisler and Caner and yet remains silent about Sam Shamoun it is simply inconsistent. Frankly it is very sad.

We Muslims are upon the truth! The Christian tradition is imploding upon itself. The Christians such as Craig Evans and Mike Licona are slowly but steadily dropping subtle hints and clues.

Their conscious bothers them and praise be to God may he bless them for not covering the truth with falsehood! Mike Licona if you read this and if your own Christian brothers and sisters attack you in such a fashion for telling the world the truth than maybe it's time to come on over to the faith that stands upon the truth!.

Respected Mike Licona you are welcome to Islam!

Praise be to God! I am a Muslim!

The affirmation of biblical inerrancy is nothing more, and nothing less, than the affirmation of the Bible’s total truthfulness and trustworthiness. The assertion of the Bible’s inerrancy - that the Bible is “free from all falsehood or mistake” - is an essential safeguard for the Bible’s authority as the very Word of God in written form. The reason for this should be clear: To affirm anything short of inerrancy is to allow that the Bible does contain falsehoods or mistakes.

Lamentably, the issue of biblical inerrancy has been and remains an issue of some controversy within evangelicalism. Addressing this crisis, a group of leading evangelicals met in Chicago in 1978 under the auspices of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy to adopt what became known as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The opening words of that statement set the issue clearly:

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

Those who affirm biblical inerrancy understand this affirmation to be essential, not just to the question of the Bible’s perfection as the Word of God, but also to the question of evangelical consistency. Thus, the Evangelical Theological Society requires an affirmation of inerrancy for membership, and it has adopted the Chicago Statement as the guiding definition of that requirement.

The question of biblical inerrancy has recently arisen in connection with a book by Michael R. Licona and published by InterVarsity Press last year. Licona is a well-known evangelical apologist who has served as Research Professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte,North Carolina, and until recently, on the staff of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Atlanta.

Order Online: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Licona’s book in question, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, is both massive and important. Furthermore, it is virtually unprecedented in terms of evangelical scholarship. The 700-page volume is nothing less than a masterful defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Licona is a gifted scholar who has done what other evangelical scholars have not yet done - he has gone right into the arena of modern historiographical research to do comprehensive battle with those who reject the historical nature of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

And Licona does so with remarkable skill and great erudition. He also writes with a commendable and quite transparent intellectual honesty. This is a very serious scholar making a very serious case for the fact that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead - and that this event is historically documented and accessible to the modern historian.

When Licona affirms the resurrection as a historical fact, he uses the definition of Richard Evans, who has argued that a historical fact is “something that happened and that historians attempt to ‘discover’ through verification procedures.” Licona denies that the resurrection is inaccessible to the modern historian, and he asserts with confidence the fact that historians who deny the historical nature of the resurrection are simply operating out of their own ideological preconception that such things simply do not happen.

In making his case, Licona demonstrates his knowledge of modern historiography, the philosophy of history, and the work of work of modern historians. He confronts head-on the arguments against the historicity of the resurrection put forth by scholars ranging from Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann to John Dominic Crossan.

In taking on Crossan, Licona documents Crossan’s straightforward denial that the resurrection can be an historical event. Crossan operates out of a naturalistic worldview that precludes belief in anything supernatural, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Crossan, a veteran of the infamous “Jesus Seminar” that sought to remove all supernatural elements from the New Testament, asserts that the body of Jesus remained in the tomb, where it decomposed and was eventually consumed by scavengers.

Licona offers a powerful rebuttal to Crossan, demonstrating, first of all, that Crossan operates out of a worldview that simply denies that a resurrection can happen. Licona takes Crossan’s arguments and, one by one, he answers them convincingly. Along the way, he documents Crossan’s own anti-supernatural ideological commitments and his use of psychohistory to explain the experience of the disciples.

But, even as Licona dissects arguments against the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, he then makes a shocking and disastrous argument of his own. Writing about Matthew 27:51-54, Licona suggests that he finds material that is not to be understood as historical fact.

The text reads:

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” [Matthew 27:51-54, English Standard Version]

The issue of greatest concern with regard to Licona’s own argument is how he deals with Matthew’s report that “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

Earlier in his book, Licona had suggested that some of the biblical material might be “poetic language or legend at certain points,” specifically mentioning Matthew 27:51-54 as an example.

That statement is deeply troubling, but when he turns his full attention to Matthew 27:51-54, his argument makes a turn for the worse. He refers to “that strange little text in Matthew 27:52-53, where upon Jesus’ death the dead saints are raised and walk into the city of Jerusalem.”

Licona then refers to various classical parallels in ancient literature and to the Bible’s use of apocalyptic language and, after his historical survey, states: “it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ’special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.”

Special effects? Licona then writes:

“There is further support for this interpretation. If the tombs opened and the saints being raised upon Jesus’ death was not strange enough, Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus’ resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the now open doorways of their tombs and waiting?

This is a very troubling argument. First of all, if we ever accept the fact that we are to explain what anyone in the Bible was doing when the Bible does not tell us, we enter into a trap of interpretive catastrophe. We are accountable for what the Bible tells us, not what it does not.

Licona eventually writes, “It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel.”

He even seems to catch himself at this point, conceding that, if the raising of these saints, along with Matthew’s other reported phenomena, are poetic devices, “we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same.”

This is exactly the right question, and Licona’s proposed answers to his own question are disappointing in the extreme. In his treatment of this passage, Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon - the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen, and should be understood as merely “poetic device” and “special effects.”

This past summer, evangelical philosopher Norman Geisler addressed two open letters to Michael Licona, charging him with violating the inerrancy of Scripture in making his argument about Matthew 27:52-53. Licona, Geisler argued, had “dehistoricized” the biblical text. As Geisler made clear, this was a direct violation of biblical inerrancy. Licona’s approach to this text, Geisler argued, “would undermine orthodoxy by dehistoricizing many crucial passages of the Bible.”

Geisler called upon Michael Licona to change his position on this text, and to affirm it as historical fact without reservation. But Geisler, a member of the Evangelical Theological Society [ETS] for many years, made another very important point. He reminded Licona that such arguments had been encountered before within the ETS, and it had led to the expulsion of a member.

Amazingly enough, the issue in that controversy was also centered in the Gospel of Matthew. New Testament scholar Robert Gundry had written Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, published in 1982. In that volume, Gundry had argued that Matthew was using the literary form of midrash and that he had thus combined both historical and non-historical material in his gospel in order to make his own theological points. Gundry had written that readers of the Matthew should not operate under the assumption “that narrative style in the Bible always implies the writing of history.” Gundry proposed that Matthew freely changed and added details in his infancy narrative to suit his theological purpose.

Scholars including D. A. Carson and Darrell Bock argued, in response, that Matthew was not writing midrash, and that his first readers would never have assumed him to have done so. Scholars also noted that Gundry’s approach was doctrinally disastrous. Gundry had argued that Matthew “edited the story of Jesus’ baptism so as to emphasize the Trinity.” Thus, Matthew was not reporting truthfully what had happened in terms of historical fact, but what he wanted to report in order to serve his theological purpose. Gundry had suggested that Matthew changed Luke’s infancy narrative by changing shepherds into Magi and the manger into a house. As one evangelical scholar retorted: “For Gundry, then, the nonexistent house was where the nonpersons called Magi found Jesus on the occasion of their nonvisit to Bethlehem.”

In 1983, the Evangelical Theological Society voted to request that Robert Gundry resign from its membership. The arguments for his expulsion from the ETS are exactly those that are now directly relevant to the argument that Michael Licona makes about Matthew 27:51-54. The suggestions that these events reported by Matthew are “special effects” and a “poetic device” are exactly the kind of dehistoricizing that led to Gundry’s removal from the ETS. Gundry’s argument concerning Matthew’s use of midrash is virtually parallel to Licona’s argument from classical references and Jewish apocalyptic sources.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly declares that these approaches are incompatible with the affirmation that the Bible is inerrant. There is every reason within the text to believe that Matthew intends to report historical facts. Matthew 27:51-54 is in the very heart of Matthew’s report of the resurrection of Christ as historical fact. Dehistoricizing this text is calamitous and inconsistent with the affirmation of biblical inerrancy.

Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement makes this point with precision: “We affirm that the text of the Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.” Furthermore, the Chicago Statement requires that “history must be treated as history.”

In a response to Norman Geisler, Michael Licona stated his affirmation of inerrancy, but did not retract his arguments concerning Matthew 27:51-54. In fact, he made no reference to “special effects,” but said that his position had been that the text should be interpreted as “apocalyptic imagery.” He also stated: “When writing my book, I always regarded the entirety of Matthew 27 as historical narrative containing apocalyptic allusions.”

But, what can this really mean? In his book, he clearly argues that the raising of the saints was not to be taken as historical fact, leaving no other option but to understand that Licona understands at least some of the “apocalyptic allusions” he sees in Matthew 27 to be something other than historical in nature. Thus, “the entirety” of Matthew 27 is not to be taken as consistent historical narrative at all.

Licona also wrote: “Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.”

This hardly resolves the issue. As a matter of fact, Licona’s only real concession here is to allow that Matthew’s report of the raised saints may be as likely as his earlier published argument. That is not a retraction. Further, he says that his slight change of view on the issue came after research in the Greco-Roman literature. As the Chicago Statement would advise us to ask: What could one possibly find in the Greco-Roman literature that would either validate or invalidate the status of this report as historical fact?

There is one crucial difference between the cases of Robert Gundry and Michael Licona. Gundry had written a major commentary on Matthew that demonstrated throughout his approach to Matthew as midrash and his argument that Matthew was changing historical facts to suit his theological agenda. Michael Licona has written a massive defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. His treatment of Matthew 27:51-54 is glaringly inconsistent with his masterful defense of the resurrection as history and of Matthew as a faithful reporter of this central historical fact.

We can only hope that Michael Licona will resolve this inconsistency by affirming without reservation the status as historical fact of all that Matthew reports in chapter 27 and all that the New Testament presents as historical narrative. He needs to rethink the question he asked himself in his book - “If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same.”

In his book, he asked precisely the right question, but then gave the wrong answer. We must all hope that he will ask himself that question again, and answer in a way that affirms without reservation that all of Matthew’s report is historical. If not, Licona has not only violated the inerrancy of Scripture, he has blown a massive hole into his own masterful defense of the resurrection.

It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in principle. The devil, as they say, is in the details. That is what makes The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so indispensable, and what makes this controversy over Licona’s book so urgent. It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in general terms. The integrity of this affirmation depends upon the affirmation of inerrancy in every detailed sense.

Michael Licona is a gifted and courageous defender of the Christian faith, and a bold apologist of Christian truth. Our shared hope must be that he will offer a full correction on this crucial question of the Bible’s full truthfulness and trustworthiness. I will be praying for him with the full knowledge that I have been one who has been gifted and assisted by needed correction. Leaving his argument where it now stands will not only diminish the influence of Michael Licona - it will present those who affirm the inerrancy of the Bible with yet another test of resolve.

EID MUBARAK TO ALL MY SISTERS AND BROTHERS IN ISLAM.

2011-08-29T06:02:00.001-07:00

BISMILLAH IR RAHMAN IR RAHEEM,

AS SALAMU 'ALIKUM WR WB (MAY THE PEACE, MERCY OF ALLAH AND BLESSINGS BE UPON YOU ALL!)

EID MUBARAK (SELEMAT HARI RAYA EID AL FITRI) TO ALL OF YOU! IT IS A HUGE BLESSING TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE TRUTH OF ISLAM ON A PLATFORM SUCH AS THIS IN TODAY'S WORLD.

WITH HUNDREDS OF HITS DAILY, MANY E-MAILS TO WADE THROUGH AND MORE AND MORE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS BEING AWAKENED TO THE REALITY THAT ISLAM IS THE TRUE WAY OF LIFE GIVEN TO US BY OUR COMMON CREATOR I AM JUST GETTING STARTED.

I PRAY THAT ALLAH BLESSES EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

LET US REACH OUT TO THE NOT-YET-MUSLIMS AND BEFRIEND THEM, HELP THEM LISTEN TO THEM AND EXPLAIN WHO WE ARE.

EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT CONVINCED OF OUR FAITH TRADITION (AND IT IS ALLAH ALONE WHO WILL OPEN THEIR HEART) WE STILL LOVE THEM AS BANI ADAM (HABLUM MINNAS) THE RESPECT FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.

THEY ARE CLEARLY HURT, LOST AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO TURN. THERE IS MUCH FEAR AND SUSPICION IN THEM.

I ASK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED DU'A AND SUPPORT AS WWW.ACOMMONWORD.NET CONTINUES TO BRING YOU THE LATEST IN POLEMIC, APOLOGETIC ON ISSUES OF GREAT CONCERN TO ADHERENTS OF ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY.

MAY ALLAH FORGIVE ME MY SHORT COMINGS (MAAF ZAHIR DAN BATIN) ETERNAL AND EXTERNAL.

SINCERELY,

YOURS.

THEGRANDVERBALIZER19

A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)

2011-07-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

A very simple question for Christians.

In what sense is God one? (Scriptural references are appreciated).

For example if I am part of the tribes of Israel and I hear it said to me 'Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is One'. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

What would I take away from that message? Would I have to have deep knowledge of theological and philosophy to understand this?

What if I was just a simple shepherd tending to my sheep?

Cf. D. Block, has a book "How Many Is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5," I thought this was a curious title for a book. A bit presumptuous. For example why not title the book 'How Many Beings is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5."

After all if the Tri-Theist are going to keep coining new phrases, employing sophistry and clever semantics why presume anything?

Why presume that God's being is 'one'? I really want to know on what basis do Christians say that God's being is one?

If words have meaning what do they mean by that? Curious Muslims (and those searching for truth) want to know.

Christian Extremist Suspect In Norway's Massacre.

2011-07-25T20:31:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Why are we not surprised? I have been telling people and reporting about Christian terrorism and extremism for some time now.

For example you don't hear reported in the media about the Christian Army who is butchering people in the name of Christ (as Jesus commands them to in the New Testament) in Africa. You can read about that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/christian-army-butchers.html

The Bible taken as a whole (is considered by Philip Jenkins author of 'Jesus Wars' to be more violent than the Qur'an) You can see that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2011/07/is-bible-more-violent-than-quran.html

In fact I have challenged people again and again to find me verses any where in the Qur'an that says the following:

Blessed by Jesus are those who smash babies craniums against rocks!

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock." (Psalm 137:9)

I thought Jesus 'loved the little children of the world' so much for cozy Church songs.

Jesus doesn't think twice about using imagery such as "And I will kill her children with death."

"And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches the hearts: and I will give unto everyone of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:23)

Jesus orders Saul to kill women, children, babies and infants.

"Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)

Now of course many Christians object and say 'Oh Jesus didn't do that the Father did' as if they did not share the same essence! It's funny how when Jesus is implicated in doing great injustice Christians will divorce themselves from the Trinity doctrine in the twinkling of an eye. Or else they will reveal themselves in true Marcion fashion. "Oh that's the God of the Old Testament" "But the God of the New Testament is all about love and peace."

Really?

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace (salam) on the earth. I did not come to bring peace (salam), but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Also how will Jesus solve things in the future? Through diplomacy and debate? No! The New Testament tells us what Jesus has in store for those who do not submit to him.

Submit or Die

"And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them in and execute them here in front of me." (Luke 19:27)

Even though Jesus is supposed to have taught 'forgive 7 x 70' and also as 'God incarnate' he has the ability to open these people's eyes and hearts, but naah. Jesus needs the satisfaction of having some people (though in all fairness not everyone) to be slayed in front of him. Why? Because it's the Lord's decree that's why!

So you can read the article here: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-charged-death-toll-norway-soars-past-90/40321/

The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway's Massacre

UJALA SEHGALJUL 23, 201128,638 ViewsComments (231)

The death toll in Norway rose to at least 91 in Norway, the New York Timesreports, following the bombing of a government center in Oslo on Friday and a shooting attack on a nearby youth camp island. The reports so far have been horrifying. According to The Guardian, a 15-year-old camper gave her account of hiding behind the same rock that the killer was standing on, dressed in a police uniform, as he shot at people. Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said he knew many of the victims of the shooting on Utøya personally.

The Norwegian police charged a 32-year-old man on Saturday, who was identified by the Norwegian media as Anders Behring Breivik. The photo above is a screen grab from his Facebook page, which has since been blocked. Breivik has been identified as a "Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections," according to theTimes, as well as with anti-Muslim views, according to multiple sources.

This is what we do and don't know about Breivik so far:

Religious views: According to the BBC, Breivik has a Facebook and Twitter account that he set up a mere few days ago on July 17, where he identifies himself as a Christian and a conservative. There are several reports of his anti-Muslim views. In a post in Norwegian in an online forum on December 2009, a user named Anders Behring Breivik claims there is not one country where Muslims have peacefully lived with non-Muslims, stating that instead it has had "catastrophic consequences" for non-Muslims.

Political views: The Daily Mail reports that National police chief Sveinung Sponheim told public broadcaster NRK that the suspected gunman's internet postings "suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but if that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen." Furthermore, the Norwegian daily Verdens Gang quoted a friend as saying Breivik became a rightwing extremist in his late 20s.

Frank Mersland, a journalist with FVN TV, says Breivik has been linked to the anti-immigration Progress party. He wrote to The Guardian via email:

The suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, has been tagged as a former member of the right winged political party Frp (Progress party). It's the second largest political party in Norway and their main issues are lower taxes and a much stricter policy on immigration. The Frp-leader, Siv Jensen, verified his membership on Norwegian TV2 a little while ago.

Apart from his anti-immigration policies, the Daily Mail and Fox News report that Breivik also argued that socialism was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused.

Interests: Fox reports that according to his recently set-up Facebook page, Brevik claimed to be well read and a fan of Norwegian World War II hero Max Manus. He listed his favorite books as "The Trial" by Franz Kafka and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell, and his favorite television show as the serial killer show "Dexter." Among his other interests he listed founding and developing organizations, freemasonry, working, gaming, partying, and fitness.

The Guardian also notes that he was a fan of violent video games who, as some former neighbors told the Norwegian media, had sometimes been seen in "military-style" clothing. The sole tweet on his Twitter account was one by philosopher John Stuart Mill, that said, "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests."

Education and employment: The BBC reports that Breivik is believed to have grown up in Oslo, and studied at the Oslo School of Management, which offers degrees and post-graduate courses. He later appears to have moved out of the city and established Breivik Geofarm, a company Norwegian media is describing as a farming sole proprietorship set up to cultivate vegetables, melons, roots, and tubers. However, The Guardian posts that Breivik's earlier businesses were not much of a success, each one of them being dissolved after a short while after making a loss until he established his farm business in 2009 and moved out of Oslo.

Personal life: Breivik described his relationship status as single, according to Fox. The Daily Mail writes that media reports in Norway described Breivik as a "loner," who lived with his mother in a wealthy suburb of west Oslo.

Access to weapons and training: According to The Guardian, Breivik was a hunter with two registered weapons, a Glock pistol and an automatic rifle, although CNN reports he also had a shotgun. The BBC adds that a supply company has come forward to say that it delivered six tons of fertilizer to Breivik's company in May -- an ingredient used in bomb-making. As for training, Breivik had no military background except for ordinary national service. According to CNN, he was exempt from Norway's mandatory military service and has not had any special military training. Additionally, he has no criminal record other than traffic violations, apparently.

Motive and method: What we don't know about Breivik is motive. The Guardian reports that one target of Breivik's anger was former Norwegian prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland -- a member of Norway's Labour Party -- who had spoken to the youth camp on Utøya the day before the massacre. However, it is unknown whether or not that led him to the youth camp. Reports are that Breivik is cooperating with police and wants to explain himself.

It is also unknown whether he had accomplices. Norwegian daily VG has interviewed witnesses of the Utøya shooting who believe there was a second gunman. According to Norwegian media sources, asecond man was arrested who had a knife on him. The Guardian translates that when asked by reporters why he was armed, the man said, "because there are so many weird people here. I do not trust anyone. " He had dark hair and smiled as he was led into the police car, according to TV2.

Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

2011-07-21T09:07:00.001-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Christian Apologist James White 'New Testament contains weakness and fabrications'!

People this is why I do what I do! Every year more and more conservative Christians are letting the cat out of the bag in subtle and profound ways! I knew it was a matter of time. I have been saying it for a long time now. Mash'Allah James White brings Christianity closer to Islam in subtle yet profound ways!

Read on...

Recently on an internet basement pod cast Christian apologist James White admitted that the New Testament contains the following:

1) That which we know is said about Jesus without doubt.

2) That which we know is said about Jesus but there is some doubt.

3) That which is attributed to Jesus but is extremely weak.

4) That which is attributed to Jesus but is an outright fabrication.

Praise be to Allah! Thank you James for your honesty at last!

Listen for yourself! I have saved this program as well in case James White has it removed.

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4721

Christian Apologist James White Admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

At 43:25 minutes into the dividing line program he says,

"as soon as you start taking for example the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an you immediately see what you actually have with the New Testament!"

That is a most fascinating claim on behalf of James White! It deserves considerable attention!

If you ask any Sunni Muslim about 'the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an' or simply called the Hadith you will find out the following:

Hadith means story. Hadith in Islam mean a written body of literature that is a record of statements, contracts and actions of the Prophet Muhammad otherwise called 'Sunnah'.

Now what you will also find out is that this body of literature 'the hadith' contains the following.

1) That which we know that Muhammad said without a doubt.

2) That which we know that Muhammad said with some doubt.

3) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is weak.

4) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is in outright fabrication.

This was very good of James White to admit this. I have to say that my level of respect for him has honestly not been very high at all. However, after James White has said this I can now take this quote of his to his peers and colleges whom admire him and say, "Look even James White whom you say has more knowledge than you do and whom you look up to said this!"

Now since James has said that 'what you actually have with the New Testament' is the same as the Hadith literature I would like for James to now explain to his listeners how this effects the doctrine of inspiration.

For example since now the New Testament is simply just a collection of oral traditions that are attributed to Prophet Jesus (Esau) than does this clash with the doctrine that the 'writers' of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen down revelation?

In fact is it even appropriate to speak of 'writers' of the New Testament now?

On what basis does James determine what statements attributed to Jesus, Peter, Paul and others are true, sound, weak and fabricated?

This I tell you friends is fascinating! We are living in fascinating times! James White if your findings take you to the logical conclusion you are always welcome as a brother in Islam! :)

Now you will understand how we use as presupposition the basis of the Qur'an to determine what anyone who came prior to Muhammad said. After all Allah keeps perfect record of what his prophets did or did not say. You will also now understand more fully why Muslims may incline towards some statements in the New Testament and stir clear of others.

Very very good James!

James White on Abdullah Kunde, Uthman and the "Deity" of Christ.

2011-07-17T00:35:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you.

James White on Abdullah Kunde, Uthman and the "Deity" of Christ.

Looks like James White is back to his vacuous ways.

After listening to a very painful edition of the dividing line (division and lies) -an internet radio podcast deep with in the dungeons of James White's basement why was I not surprised when he managed in one fell swoop to make three serious blunders.

1) Actually accuse Abdullah Kunde of using a consistent argument! Can you believe it?

2) Not being able to answer the question: "Where does the deity dwell inside of Christ Jesus"

3) Making false accusations about Caliph Uthman.

Here is the link: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4721

First let me say I am none too happy that not a single Muslim has challenged James on his repeated assertion that Caliph Uthman did a "revision" of the Qur'an. He said it again on his program.

Please (Abdullah Kunde, Shabir Ally, Abdullah Al Andalusi, Bassam Zawadi) and whom ever else if you are reading this please take James to task for his blatant error of historical information.

First I would get James White to agree to a common definition of the term revision. Let him choose any collegiate dictionary, or thesaurus he wishes.

Let us take a look at the word revision.

Definition of REVISION

a : an act of revisingb : a result of revising : alteration

a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revisea manuscript>

Do tell James I pray thee....What copy of the Qur'an did Uthman have prior to his "revision" that he was altering, or improving or correcting? Could you please tell us what were those improvements, corrections and that which is altered?

Do you have any proof or evidence? If so what is it? Why are you withholding this information from your listeners? On what honest and consistent basis as a Christian do you do this?

Well James is a different kind of fish, and like many types of fish he can be slippery.

So James might say 'oops o.k' don't like the word revision how about the word recension! You like that one better?

So what is the meaning of the word recension?

1. A critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources.

2. A text so revised.

So I can't believe that Muslims have let James off the hook on this repeated assertion one too many times! I also can't believe that for over 1 year plus I myself have over looked this.

Now that mistake (on my behalf) has been corrected.

We have him on record making this claim. Anyone who debates him in the future on the textual reliability of the Qur'an (Or the New Testament -you know James won't stay focused and the subject will quickly turn to the Qur'an) you need to press him on this point!

James has done stuck his foot in his mouth (yet again...)

#2) Actually accusing Abdullah Kunde of having consistent standards! Can you believe it? You really just can't win with this guy. (Mr. Inconsistency -'James White') himself! The one who claims that Muslims are unfair and inconsistent is now actually accusing Adullah Kunde of using a consistent argument when dealing with the transmission of the Qur'an and the New Testament!

Than he claims it's comparing apples and oranges! Would you get a load of this guy?

#3) "Where does the deity (God) dwell inside of Jesus"? A trinitarian Christian who was questioning his doctrines presuppositions called in hoping to get clarification from James on the issue of the alleged 'deity' of Christ. All that he got was a very snooty and very agitated James White who was inept to answer a basic question of Christian doctrine.

The gentleman's name was Albert well Albert I have some news for you. You will never get a straight answer from James or any other Christian because the doctrine is a false doctrine rest assured.

For example Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily"

O.K where exactly does it dwell? If the 'fullness' is inside of him how come Jesus doesn't know things like when the day of judgement will take place?

"No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32)

James White response, "Well Albert why do you assume that God can't both know and not know at the same time? Can't God be the all knowing and not know at the same time?" "Have faith Albert just believe don't question!" "Don't think things through Albert just believe or I'll get upset with you and get snippy and question rather or not your a Christian simply because you have questions."

Classic presupposition apologetic fumbling on behalf of James White.

Well Albert I would like to direct you to an exciting series I did back in October that was an eye opener for many a Christian.

You can be directed here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/is-christ-jesus-god-part-1.html

What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays.

2011-07-16T22:10:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays.

I would recommend everyone to read the dialogue with Dr. Tuggy and Steven Hays. In the end you can judge for yourself but for me Steven Hays gave a presentation that left one wondering if he was either a Sabellian or a blatant Tri-theist. I was left with the impression that Steven Hays gave an articulation for his position (I Believe In Some Form of Trinity) when actually came to articulating his position he fell flat!

The following is taken from: http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2872#more-2872

A huge thank you and God bless to David Waltz @ (Articuli Fidei) for making us aware of this exchange!

another round from Steve Hays.

This is my last entry in the discussion; I may or may not comment, but no more posts.

Again, this is what I hear from him:

Yes, the divine nature is a universal, shared by the Three. But let’s not make any Platonic assumptions about forms/universals being in some other realm than what has them, or being more fundamental.

Indeed, let’s not.

Are the persons parts of the Trinity, for him?

He brings up the Mandelbrot set. This is an abstract object. It doesn’t have parts, but rather members. Is he suggesting that the Trinity is a set, with members rather than parts? That it has infinite members? I don’t know.

Then, a digression about analogy. Of course, my point was:don’t you think God is literally a self? (Not: Is God analogous to a self?)

Perhaps he assumes that all terms that apply to God do so only analogically. I think that’s obviously false; we have terms that express concepts abstract to be satisfied by either God or a creature. e.g. “exists,” “conscious,” “similar to God.”

Or maybe he’s just worried about painting himself into the Quaternity corner.

I think Tuggy is now insinuating that the Trinity devolves into the Quaternity.

There goes that Tuggy again, insinuating things about thedoctrine! No, the subject is just: what Steve Hays thinks.

The Trinity would not be a “self” in the same sense that the constituent members are “selves.” The Trinity is not a fourth person, over and above the three persons. Rather, each person is conscious of what the other two are conscious of. Not just that each person is conscious of the other two persons, but conscious of their consciousness.

So no, the Trinity isn’t a self in the same sense each person is. This conveniently leaves it an open question whether or not it is a self in any other sense, and whether it’s literally a self, or only analogous to a self.

But perhaps his final answer is that it (the Trinity) really is an it, not a he.

The “owner” of the “corporate viewpoint” is each member of the Trinity. That’s because each person not only has his own first-person viewpoint, but is also privy to the viewpoint of the other two.

I conclude, then, that in his view there are three, not four conscious beings here, and three points of view. It’s just that each also can (and always does, I assume) adopt the viewpoint of both the others.

About his “data” of revelation; he’s unable to see that some of these are precisely what are at issue. In other words, he begs the question, because he’s not able to adopt the perspective of those he would refute.

Now, finally: I switch to brief criticism:

This looks to me basically like a poorly developed “social” Trinity theory

We have three beings here, each of which fully has the property of divinity. Thus, it looks like we have three gods. Yes, I know that surely he intends it to be monotheistic. So, the theory seems inconsistent.

What is the Trinity? A group? A composite thing? A set with members? A quasi-self? He doesn’t know. But it seems that he wants to deny the one God to literally be a self. If so, he goes hard against the Bible, throughout. God knows, acts, gets mad, makes and carries out plans, stands in an I-thou relationship to Jesus, as well as to disciples of Jesus. Further, I’m willing to bet that like just about all Christians, he interacts with God as a self to a self.

Evidently, Steve hopes that positing perfect mental accessbetween the three deities will somehow imply their being one god. But, that has not been shown. It looks like a picture of three gods with perfect access to each others’ minds.

I think this is all a poor fit with the Bible.

But laying aside that, is it creedally orthodox? Not clear. While the creeds say that all three must be “homoousios”, they also say that the Son is true God from true God. In Steve’s theory, does the Son derive his existence or divinity from the Father? I don’t know. All he’s said is that all three equally and fully possess divinity. So, I don’t know if his theory is orthodox by (small-c) catholic standards.

Update: as of 7/5/11, lots more long posts, with lots of accusations, flailing away to find some obvious confusion in my own views, but never addressing this monotheism objection. To the creedal worry, his answer is that being a Protestant, he doesn’t care if it is creedal or not. Fair enough. I’ve commented quite a bit over there, probably too much.

Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity) part 2

2011-07-13T22:38:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity) part 2

The very sad thing about Trinitarian-Christians is that they can NEVER define God without the use of the word 'Three'. They can NEVER define God's oneness without the use of the word three.

In the TNCH (what Christians call the 'Old Testament') God uses the word ONE to communicate who and what he is.

(Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is ONE")

Now this passage DOES NOT say "Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is THREE." It does not say "Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is Three in One" It does not say "Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is One in Three".

We just saw in the previous post that noted Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig admits that on the basis of the TNCH alone one would not arrive to the conclusion that God is a trinity.

Now please read what a follower of Judaism has to say about the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 above. (Not a Jewish convert to Christianity -whom now carries Christian presuppositions)

You can read about that here: http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2009/04/trinity-part-two-echad.html

That Jewish follower of Judaism says on his blog:

"In defending the covenant God has with Israel, I will gladly stand toe to toe with anybody who wishes to debate me over what the Hebrew Bible states in Hebrew concerning the Hebrews. I will also challenge everyone to learn and read the Hebrew Bible and to stay with the full and complete context in which it was clearly written. You will find as I have that the Jewish Bible simply contains a full and complete message within itself for all mankind that starts and ends with His chosen people. I believe if a person (regardless of his / her pre-conceived ideas) carries the right attitude towards the God of Israel, then God will surely show that person the fullness of truth of which that person is able to conceive, which is what is required of all people (Psalms 25:14)."

You know what the insincere Tri-Theist Christian who proclaims trinitarianism does? That person will click the above link read it and will not DARE post a response to it. Because they KNOW they cannot refute the Jews who follow and practice Judaism on their own terms.

We have the Holy Qur'an which states the following:

He is Allah the One

Allah the independent and besought of all or that which is independent of all things but all things are dependent upon.

He begets not nor is he begotten.

And there is none like unto him.

(Holy Qur'an chapter 112:1-4)

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=112

Now the interesting thing is that the word that is translated often enough as 'One' above is the Arabic word Ahad.

In the Qur'an we have the Arabic word Wahid for the number one.

"And your god is one God. There is no deity (worthy of worship) except Him, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful (Holy Qur'an 2:163)

The Arabic word that is used for the word 'one' above is wahid.

The difference between Ahad and Wahid.

Now the following video is in Urdu (however the English translation is given with in the video)

Allah is not a body (form) and Allah is not comprised of parts.

The sad plight of the Christians (belief in an unknown God)

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23)

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you (the only true God) have sent." (John 17:3)

"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)

Christians are without knowledge of the only true God. Especially the trinitarians. They do not know what they worship.

Here goes the Trinitarian doctrine known as the 'Athanasian Creed'....quoting in part and you can find the fuller version online at your own discretion.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So there you have it! A belief that the father is incomprehensible and that the son is incomprehensible and that the holy spirit is incomprehensible but they are not three incomprehensible they are one incomprehensible!

So here you have a doctrine you must believe in for your eternal salvation! It's not in Deuteronomy 6:4. By Dr. William Lane Craig's admission it is not in the TNCH (what Christians call the Old Testament) and it was not revealed through revelation. It was a doctrine that (though many feel is based upon revelation) is ULTIMATELY decided upon by men during Church councils. So these men tell us that God is incomprehensible!

Think about that for a minute. Think long and hard about that statement coming from men! If the theologians of the Trinity KNEW it (their doctrine) was beyond the understanding of men then, as MEN how do they know that they got it right in the first place?

That is quite a conundrum! To say that one can know God's essence is unknowable is self defeating. It is similar to saying one knows that truth cannot be known!

So how do these Tri-theist (Trinitarians) say "The ousia of God exist trihypostatically." ???

Is God Composite?

First we should define the term composite.

1. Made up of distinct components; compound.

Lets take a look at some more crafty classical Christian slick talk:

http://carm.org/trinity (A pro Trinity web site)

I thought in classical Christian theology believed in 'Divine Simplicity'. Atleast I thought St. Thomas Aquinas believed this.

The first step is to establish the biblical doctrine that there is only one God. Then, you find that each of the persons is called God, each creates, each was involved in Jesus' resurrection, each indwells, etc. Therefore, God is one, but the one God is in three simultaneous persons. Please note that the idea of a composite unity is not a foreign concept to the Bible; after all, man and wife are said to be one flesh. The idea of a composite unity of persons is spoken of by God in Genesis (Gen. 2:24).

Actually it was not even necessary to use this as an example. The man by himself is a composite unity. The woman by herself is a composite unity.

My head is not my arm and my arm is not my leg and my leg is not my head, yet they are all 'Me'. However, where this example falls flat is that my leg by itself IS NOT me. In fact I could exist WITHOUT my leg. I could even exist without my arm. Of course in this example I could not exist without my head!

If you take this example of composite unity and apply it to the Tri-Theist (Trinitarian) concept of what God is you get the following:

The Father is part of God, but not all of God. The Son is part of God but not all of God. The Holy Spirit is part of God but not all of God. Yet the Trinitarian dogma as defined by the Athanasian Creed above says,

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

This is clearly where we part with the Christians in their theological conceptions of the Creator (Most High). They believe that the Creator is composed of parts of which the Creator is incomplete without the sum of the parts. I am tired of people saying that I misrepresent Christian dogma or that I don't understand.

1) I do not misrepresent it. The carm.org web site above goes out of it's way to say that God is a composite being!

2) I understand what Trinitarians believe; however I don't buy it. I understand what Hindus believe but I don't buy into it either.

This is usually a cop out by Trinitarians who are at a loss for words or feel frustrated in trying to present their incomprehensible doctrines.

The Creator's being is not One. God is not capable of being One indivisible being that is not composite.

The number one starts to take on less and less significance as the Trinitarian doctrine becomes expounded. What happens is that God's oneness becomes supplementary to his threeness. The 'oneness' of God or the idea that God is one becomes little more than a foot note in Christian theological discussion.

"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist -it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (Holy Qur'an 4:171)

Dr. William Lane Craig admits that the Trinity is NOT FOUND in the Old Testament !!

2011-07-13T19:08:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Dr. William Lane Craig admits that the Trinity is NOT FOUND in the Old Testament !!

Ladies and Gentleman and especially YOU the Christian truth seeker. This is the smoking gun!

In the above exchange with Rabbi Tovia Singer.

"And I would agree with Tovia that if we approach this question simply on the basis of the Hebrew Bible or what we would call the Old Testament one wouldn't come to believe that God is a Trinity" Wow!

So in other words the only way you would find the Trinity in the Old Testament is if you approached from Christian presuppositions about God. If you let the Old Testament (TNCH) stand ON ITS OWN you do not get a Trinity! That is powerful testimony coming from Dr.William Lane Craig the top apologist in Christianity today!

Or if Christians use projection (where they project their philosophical constructs about the Creator) based upon their understanding of how the Creator revealed himself in the New Testament writings and than come to the conclusion he must have done the same in the Old Testament.

To say that the authors of the TNCH (what Christians label 'Old Testament') did not know about the Trinity or were not inspired by God to know about it is absolutely ridiculous.

All one has to do is to look at all the arguments that Trinitarians come up with by trying to assert that indeed the Trinity is in the TNCH. Than you hear the Jewish response and you will see that it is indeed airtight!

Muslims and Jews have the same theological concept of the Creator. It is the believers in Tri-theism (who call themselves Trinitarians) who have radically departed from the belief in the One God. May Allah open their hearts and bring them back to the path. Ameen!

Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity)

2011-07-13T10:34:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity)

Recently while talking to a believer in Tri-theism (the belief in three all powerful gods that join together and work as a unified team) other wise known as 'Trinity' something also occurred to me.

One of the glaring and obvious things one notices about the Trinity is that God is not a singular being that has something that no one or nothing else shares.

The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is One Team ( a group of three that co exist together). Of course this is a philosophical presupposition about the creator that does not have CLEAR revelation to back it up. It is the product of theological debates and musings about the divine.

In the Trinity doctrine God is not singularly unique. In fact it makes little sense to speak about 'God' when talking to Trinitarians. They believe in gods. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

The problem with their theological presupposition is saying that God is One Team (a group comprising of three gods that co exist together) is that you could say based upon that same presupposition that God is One Team (comprising a hundred gods that co exist together).

In the Trinity God is not Singularly Unique. In fact there is nothing singularly unique about the creator. The Creator is not allowed to have a unique oneness that is not shared.

What ever the Father has the Son also has. What ever the Son has is also shared by the Holy Spirit.

For example you could have two black shoe boxes. They could be exactly identical in shape and volume. However, the only thing that makes one unique from the other is the space that the other occupies. That would be 'unique' to it as a shoe box.

However, with in the Trinity there is no way to define God as one without immediately bringing another number into the picture; the number three.

Philosophical jargon is quick to enter into the picture in a discussion with even the most astute Trinitarian. They will tell you that they believe that God is one sure; but they will quantify what they mean by saying 'We believe God is one in essence but is comprised of Three persons'.

When asked to define what they mean by persons more philosophical jargon enters and one is hard pressed to get a proper definition of person.

So what you end up with is Tri-theism that tries to mask itself as monotheism and tries to distance itself from modalism.

The Qur'an lays down the truth

Say: Allah is One (Absolute)

Allah is Unique.

Allah begots not

nor is Allah begotten.

And there is NOTHING LIKE unto Allah.

(Holy Qur'an chapter 112:1-4)

As to Allah's nature Allah's being (dhat) or essence is One. The Trinitarians can make such a claim They may say, "We believe God's essence (being) is One" However it is a fallacious claim.

They do not believe that God's essence is One, because God's essence is SHARED. They believe that God's essence (being) is shared by THREE.

It is not UNIQUE TO ONE. It is SHARED by THREE.

Note for example what Protestant Christian apologist James White says here: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognizewhat something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

Note the philosophical jargon. When White says above "It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person." what White does not tell you is that it is not a contradiction to say "there are three beings that share one being, or three persons that share one person."

Also the last sentence something he left out. "Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

What White didn't tell you is "One what, three who's that share FULLY and COMPLETELY One What"

They therefore in reality do not believe that God's essence is One. If they truly believe that than God's essence is one what?

It can't be ONE if it is SHARED by THREE. The being cannot be Unique to One if it is also SHARED by THREE.

Now I can claim that a rock has being fair enough. However, if I claim that rock and it's being (time and place everything about it) is shared FULLY and EQUALLY by atleast two other rocks I cannot in all honestly look you straight in the face and than claim I believe in a rock that is Unique in it's being.

If we start to take this approach we have already left the pure and safe road. We have left the creed of safety. Allah no longer has that which no one or nothing else has because Allah's being is not unique. Allah's being is shared. Than to turn around and couch this in philosophical language and claim to the people of La Ilaha illa lah (there is no God except God) that you worship the God of Abraham and that you are monotheistic is frankly insulting. You insult yourselves, and when you look into your own hearts you will come face to face with the monstrosity of that doctrine which was forged and formulated in Church councils and couched in Greek Philosophical verbiage.

May Allah protect us and keep us on the way that is straight! I call all the Christians who believe in Trinity (Tri-theism) back to the worship of the One True God.

Time for Christian Shariah In the United States?

2011-07-11T07:32:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheemm,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Time for Christian Shariah in the United States?

It is extremely inconsistent for Christians who attack what they perceive as correct implementation of Shari'ah in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and else where and remain completely silent on the agenda of ultra-conservative Christians to impose Christian Shari'ah on the populace of the United States (and indeed the world).

Christian Shariah in the United States not possible? Have a read from someone in the know. Mr. Frank Schaeffer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/ralph-reed-and-the-people_b_875599.html

Reconstructionists are not about to take over America, the world, or even most American Evangelical institutions. But their influence has been like a drop of radicalizing flavoring added to a bottle of water. As reported in the Huffington Post, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 42 percent of tea party supporters said they agree with the religious right.

Most Americans have never heard of the Reconstructionists. But they have felt their impact through the Reconstructionists' profound (if indirect) influence over the wider (and vast) Evangelical community. In turn, the Evangelicals shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the Religious Right, let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its edge. As a result people ask themselves; "Where on earth do people like Michele Bachmann get their wacky ideas from?"

I'll tell you.

The Americans inhabiting the wider (and more secular) culture see the results of Reconstructionism without understanding where those results have come from -- for instance, how the hell George W. Bush got elected and then reelected, or the Ralph Reed comeback. Without understanding the Reconstructionists a person would not understand this Washington Post story:

"What's likely to happen is what a lot of us have wanted to see happen for a long time -- a social conservative movement that speaks to a broader set of issues but which never strays from the foundational issues of life and family and marriage," said longtime political operative Ralph Reed, who as a baby-faced 33-year-old leading the Christian Coalition in 1995 was dubbed "The Right Hand of God" on the cover of Time magazine.

Reed suffered a fall from grace and a defeat in his 2006 bid for Georgia lieutenant governor, hurt by his association with the scandals surrounding former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But he is back again as head of a new organization called the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

But what is behind this?

As I explain in my book, Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics -- and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway, if you feel victimized by modernity, then the Reconstructionists have the answer in their version of biblical interpretation.

Ralph Reed is a follower of my late father Francis Schaeffer and as I know from conversations with him many years ago was highly influenced by the Reconstructionists.

Reconstructionists want to replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible. In the Reconstructionists' best of all worlds, Eddie Izzard would have been long since executed for the "crimes" of inappropriate wardrobe, not to mention "blasphemy." If given the chance, they would burn people like my Evangelical leader mother (Edith Schaeffer) at the stake for her "heresy" of explaining away the nastier bits of the Bible or at least not living by its meaner rules.

Most Evangelicals are positively moderate by comparison to the Reconstructionists. But the Reconstructionist movement is a distilled essence of the more mainstream Evangelical version of an exclusionary theology that divides America into the "Real America" (as the Far Right claims only it is) and the rest of us "Sinners."

And it was those "Real Americans" who were Bush's base and are now trying to turn the 2012 election into a religious contest about "values." The Reconstructionist worldview is ultra-Calvinist but, like all Calvinism, has its origins in ancient Israel/Palestine, when vengeful and ignorant tribal lore was written down by frightened men (the nastier authors of the Bible) trying to defend their prerogatives.

In its modern American incarnation, which hardened into a twentieth-century movement in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1970s, Reconstructionism was propagated by people I knew and worked with closely when I, too, was a Jesus Predator claiming God's special favor.

The leaders of the Reconstructionist movement included the late Rousas Rushdoony (Calvinist theologian, father of modern-era Christian Reconstructionism, patron saint to gold-hoarding haters of the Federal Reserve, and creator of the modern Evangelical homeschool movement), his son-in-law Gary North (an economist and publisher), and David Chilton (Calvinist pastor and author).

Writer Chris Hedges has called this the rise of "Christian Fascism," where "those that speak in the language of fact... are hated and feared."

Anyone who wants to understand American politics had better get acquainted with the Reconstructionists. Reconstructionism, also called Theonomism, seeks to reconstruct "our fallen society" and/or in the words of Sarah Palin "take America back."

Its worldview is best represented by the publications of the Chalcedon Foundation (which has been classified as an antigay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center).

According to the Chalcedon Foundation website, the mission of the movement is to apply "the whole Word of God" to all aspects of human life: "It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own."

Until Rushdoony, founder and late president of the Chalcedon Foundation, began writing in the 1960s, most American fundamentalists (including my religious leader parents parents) didn't try to apply biblical laws about capital punishment for homosexuality to the United States.

Even the most conservative Evangelicals said they were "New Testament Christians." In other words, they believed that after the coming of Jesus, the harsher bits of the Bible had been (at least to some extent) transformed by the "New Covenant" of Jesus' "Law of Love."

By contrast, the leaders of Reconstructionism believed that Old Testament teachings -- on everything from capital punishment for gays to the virtues of child-beating -- were still valid because they were the inerrant Word and Will of God and therefore should be enforced. Not only that, they said that biblical law should be imposed even on nonbelievers.

This theology was the American "Christian" version of the attempt in some Muslim countries to impose Sharia (Islamic law) on all citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It's no coincidence that the rise of the Islamic Brotherhoods in Egypt and Syria and the rise of North American Reconstructionism took place in a twentieth-century time frame -- as science, and modern "permissiveness" collided with a frightened conservatism rooted in religion.

The writings of people such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and those of Rushdoony are virtually interchangeable when it comes to their goals of restoring God to His "rightful place" as He presides over law and morals. According to al-Banna, Islam enjoins man to strive for a segregation of male and female students, a separate curriculum for girls, a prohibition on dancing, and a campaign against "ostentation in dress and loose behavior." Islamic governments must eventually be unified in a theocratic Caliphate. Or as the late Reconstructionist/Calvinist theologian David Chilton (sounding startlingly al-Bannalike) explained:

The Great Commission to the Church does not end with simply witnessing to the nations. . . . The kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of Christ. . . . This means that every aspect of life throughout the world is to be brought under the lordship of Jesus Christ: families, individuals, business, science, agriculture, the arts, law, education, economics, psychology, philosophy, and every other sphere of human activity. Nothing may be left out. Christ "must reign, until He has put all enemies under His feet" (1st Cor. 15:25). . . . Our goal is a Christian world, made up of explicitly Christian nations. How could a Christian desire anything else? . . . That is the only choice: pagan law or Christian law. God specifically forbids "pluralism." God is not the least bit interested in sharing world dominion with Satan. (Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, 6th ed. Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1999, 271)

It was my old friend, the short, stocky, bearded, gnomelike, Armenian-American Rousas Rushdoony who in 1973 most thoroughly laid out the Far Right/Religious Right agenda in his bookThe Institutes of Biblical Law. Rushdoony changed the definition of salvation from the accepted Evangelical idea that it applies to individuals to the claim that salvation is really about politics.

With this redefinition, Rushdoony contradicted the usual reading of Jesus' words by most Christians to mean that Jesus had not come to this earth to be a political leader: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).

According to Rushdoony, all nations on earth should be obedient to the ancient Jewish/Christian version of "God's Law," so that the world will experience "God's blessings." Biblical salvation will then turn back the consequences of The Fall, and we'll be on our way to the New Eden. To achieve this "turning back," coercion must be used by the faithful to stop evildoers, who are, by definition, anyone not obeying all of God's Laws as defined by the Reconstructionist interpretation of the Bible.

How far would the Reconstructionists go? North, writes,

"The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offence to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Exodus 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Leviticus 24:16)." (The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), 59-60.)

Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder.

Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, "unchastity before marriage."

According to North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, "along with those who advised them to abort their children." Rushdoony concludes: "God's government prevails, and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them."

Here is how I imagine a Reconstructionist version of the Sermon on the Mount would read, inclusive of Reconstructionist "inside" theological/political code words like "Law-Word":

Blessed are those who exercise dominion over the earth: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who deport the immigrants: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are those who agree that the significance of Jesus Christ as the 'faithful and true witness' is that He not only witnesses against those who are at war against God, but He also executes them: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His Law-Word: for they shall be filled. Blessed are those who say that those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God must be denied citizenship: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the Calvinist Christians who are the only lawful heirs to the Kingdom: for they shall see God. Blessed are those who know that turning the other cheek is a temporary bribe paid to evil secular rulers: for they shall be called sons of God if they bust their enemies in the chops. Blessed are those who have taken an eye for an eye: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye when ye know that the battle for My sake is between the Christian Reconstruction Movement and everyone else. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven. For so we are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody who gets in our way, and kill those who resist.

The impact of Reconstructionism (often under other names) has grown even though Rushdoony has largely been forgotten even in Evangelical circles, let alone the wider world. He made the Evangelical world more susceptible to being politicized -- and manipulated by some very smart people.

The ultimate irony is this: members of the Religious Right say they fear Muslims imposing Shariah Law on America. This isn't about to happen. But what is taking place is a home grown movement -- led by fundamentalist Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics -- to turn America into their version of a modern day theocracy -- say, Iran.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer. his latest book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway.

Orthodox Christians Beating The Holy Hell Out of Each Other!

2011-07-09T02:11:00.001-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May The Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings Be Upon You).

Orthodox Christians Beating the Holy Hell Out of Each Other.

*Warning* Graphic content and violence shown in the videos.

So what actually happens when you run out of cheeks? These Christians show the world the power that Christ wrought effectual in them by beating the holy crap out of one another in Jerusalem.

So don't let anyone fool you that Muslims are the trouble makers! Watch for yourself as Orthodox Armenians and Orthodox Greek Christians beat the living day lights out of one another.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword instead!" (Matthew 10:34)

AND THE CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE CONTINUES...

THE GREEK SIDE OF THE STORY AND THE ARMENIAN SIDE OF THE STORY.

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

2011-07-08T19:40:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Qur'an?

Taken from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

As the hijackers boarded the airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, they had a lot on their minds. And if they were following instructions, one of those things was the Quran.

In preparation for the suicide attack, their handlers had told them to meditate on two chapters of the Quran in which God tells Muslims to "cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers."

"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them," Allah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: "Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites! ... Hell shall be their home, an evil fate."

When Osama bin Laden declared war on the West in 1996, he cited the Quran's command to "strike off" the heads of unbelievers. More recently, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan lectured his colleagues about jihad, or "holy war," and the Quran's exhortation to fight unbelievers and bring them low. Hasan is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year.

Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.

- Philip Jenkins, author of 'Jesus Wars'

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

'Holy Amnesia'

But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, Christianity and Judaism today are not for the most part.

"What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia," Jenkins says.

EnlargeCourtesy of HarperOne

Jenkins, author of Jesus Wars, says that violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attack.

They make the violence symbolic: Wiping out the enemy becomes wiping out one's own sins. Jenkins says that until recently, Islam had the same sort of holy amnesia, and many Muslims interpreted jihad, for example, as an internal struggle, not physical warfare.

Andrew Bostom calls this analysis "preposterous." Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, says there's a major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the Quran, which urges an ongoing struggle to defeat unbelievers.

"It's an aggressive doctrine," he says. "The idea is to impose Islamic law on the globe."

Take suicide attacks, he says — a tactic that Muslim radicals have used to great effect in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. It's true that suicide from depression is forbidden in Islam — but Bostom says the Quran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Muhammad, do allow self-destruction for religious reasons.

"The notion of jihad martyrdom is extolled in the Quran, Quran verse 9:1-11. And then in the Hadith, it's even more explicit. This is the highest form of jihad — to kill and to be killed in acts of jihad."

'Out Of Context'

That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it's the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.

"All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad," he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf "are going to hell."

So what's going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?

El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there's been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.

"Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then use that to justify these egregious actions," he says.

El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn't be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.

"The scriptures are still there, dormant, but not dead," he says, "and they can be resurrected at any time. Witness the white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity, or an anti-abortion activist when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.

In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.

Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

2011-07-07T02:21:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you.)

Sex, Sensuality and the Christian Heaven.

It truly is unfortunate when one reflects upon early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It reflects an almost Gnostic (anti-human) and (pro being) stance.

Islam is a reflection of the reality of what the Creator actually made. Allah has made us as Human/Beings.

We are animals (human) with a soul (being). In Islam you do not nurture or neglect one aspect of your reality to the detriment of the other.

The Noble Prophet Muhammed said, "Who ever does not marry is not of us." He is talking about people who have taken upon themselves monasticism; of which Allah says was never ordained for human beings.

"Whomever marries has completed half their faith now let them complete the other half by fearing Allah and doing what is right" -Noble Prophet Muhammed.

"Then We caused Our Messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers." ( Holy Qur'an 57:27)

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

No doubt this is a continuation of an earlier admonishment reported to have been given by Jesus where he is to have said,

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:18)

So we can see here it was not necessary for Jesus to say "If your penis offends you, if your ears offend you etc... people pretty much got the ideal.

Of course this can become quite morbid when one reflects upon 'The City of God' -Augustine. I mean after all didn't God say to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28)

Now it should be clear that NO WHERE is there an explicit text in the Bible that says 'There will be NO SEX' in heaven! Again your going to have to go into the warped thinking of Augustine to come up with this kind of nonsense. Even though the Creator says that the creation 'is good' these people can only see it as evil! A legacy from earlier gnostic influence rest assured.

So let us look at the text that are most often used to try and conclude that there is no sex in marriage.

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)
Note the above says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage. Remember asking your Priest/Deacon/Pastor/Bishop how Adam and Eve were married? Remember hearing those cool little stories about how they were 'married in the sight of God'?

"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen."(Genesis 6:2 Young's Literal Translation).

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)

Now notice that the Young's Literal Translation basically says that the Sons of God 'took the women'. While the other translations say that the 'married' the women. So how actually did they get married? Was it in the 'sight of God' as well? If these beings 'angels' are law breakers and transgressors why get married?

Furthermore note that it says 'SONS of God' and I already mentioned the Christian heaven is not for FEMALES! It is for men only, any woman deemed worthy enough will be turned into a SON OF GOD. Never ever a daughter of God! Note it doesn't say 'The Daughters of God' saw the sons of men were beautiful. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html) < Article entitled "Does the Christian Heaven Have A Place For Women"?

Mark 12 and Luke 20 basically have the same story as the one above.

Remember in the Bible resurrected beings enjoy all kinds of sensual pleasure!

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) Apparently Jesus was able to eat some tasty tidbits as the 'firstborn' of the resurrection.

We also have this curious vision.

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine--the best of meats and the finest of wines." (Isaiah 25:6)

So move over Augustine looks like fine dining and great wine will be on the menu in heaven but no sex!

Now even though the passages in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20 do not explicitly say there is no sex in heaven some Christians reason that only by way of analogical deduction. They don't stop and ponder that maybe the whole idea of marriage (with it's laws and ordinances) will no longer be a necessity in heaven.

Another passage that Christians especially those who have an Augustine slant could use is the following:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins (parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Now this text is probably the strongest AGAINST the idea of having sex in heaven. Because if the translation is rendered correct these men remained VIRGINS and they did not DEFILE themselves with women (outside of marriage or INSIDE of marriage). Now think about that for a moment especially if your a woman! Also it's quite sad that not a single woman out of all of Earth's women will be singled out to be among the privileged 144,000 that get to learn this special song!

I guess there will be no sex in heaven after all, in fact it's kind of hard for that to happen when THERE ARE ONLY MEN IN HEAVEN.. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html)....unless...wait... I better not go there!