Ron Grossi: God is not a man

[Lawrence Lucier]

1) I am posting to a newsgroup on the Microsoft Usenet Server. It's not my
fault the demon-lover who posted the original anti-Christian article
cross-posted to so many newsgroups across so many servers. Talk to him
about cross-posting.

It is YOUR fault if you REPLY and still include all other cross posted
newsgroup names!! When replying remove ALL newsgroup names not
applicable to the one specific newsgroup area you are posting to!

Take some time to learn about the equipment you are using......

 

[Obaid R.]

1) I am posting to a newsgroup on the Microsoft Usenet Server. It's not my
fault the demon-lover who posted the original anti-Christian article
cross-posted to so many newsgroups across so many servers. Talk to him
about cross-posting.
1) I will go away, when Christ returns for me. I hope you are ready for His
return, else you are in for a living Hell here on the Earth before the REAL
Hell rises up to swallow you in its Flames.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
==============================

And the demon lover would be the one who
quotes from the "word of God" as reported in
your own Bible which proclaims that "God is
not a man ... neither the son of man"
(Numbers 23: 19)? Is it your contention that
this is demonic truth? See what the world is
comming to?

And it was not I who originally cross-posted
as you claim. I was replying to Mr. Grossi
who did start the cross-posting. Does your
words: "the demon-lover who posted the
original anti-Christian article cross-posted
to so many newsgroups across so many servers"
apply to him? Here is a quote from the head
of his original post:

From: (e-mail address removed)
Newsgroups:

Microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web,rec.music.beatles,rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,alt.showbiz.gossip,comp.lang.python



In case you are interested in comparitive
religion then maybe these links might be of
help:


Qur'an:
=======
[1] Download a free Qur'an viewer:
http://www.divineislam.co.uk/


Audio:
======
[1] Christ in Islam - Parts 1, 2 & 3; a lecture by Ahmed Deedat.
http://islam.org/audio/ra622_1.ram

[2] Crucification: Fact or Fiction - Parts 1, & 2; a Christain Muslim
debate in the USA with a Christian and Muslim audience in attendence.
http://islam.org/audio/ra622_3.ram

[3] Is the Bible God's Word - Parts 1, & 2; a Christian Muslim debate
in the USA with a Christian and Muslim audience in attendence.
http://islam.org/audio/ra622_4.ram

[4] Audio & Video Files; Misc. topics.
http://www.beconvinced.com/SPEECHES.htm


Articles and booklets:
======================
[1] Christ In Islam by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0011.html

[2] What Does the Bible Say about Mohammed (PBUH)? by Sheikh Ahmad
Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0014.html

[3] The God That Never Was by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0016.html

[4] What was the Sign of Jonah? by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0017.html

[5] Who moved the Stone? by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0018.html

[6] Resurrection or Resuscitation? by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat.
http://www.thestraightway.com/literature/0019.html

[7] Other work by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat.
http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

 

[Obaid R.]

Apologies to all if this remains OT. It was
not I who started it.


Brian,


Your uninformed judgment of my person does
not add nor subtract from the issues
presented here.

After all, and at the end of the day you will
still be faced with the issue of how Christ
PBBUH the "man" (Acts 2: 22) and the "son of
man" (Luke 9: 58) can ever be considered by
Mr. Grossi, and people of like mind, as God,
and this in direct contradiction to the Bible
which repeatedly and explicitly proclaims
that "God is not a man ... neither the son of
man." (Numbers 23: 19). My entire existence
or the end thereof has no bearing on this
matter.

The same goes for your apparently unsupported
claim concerning the lack of honesty in the
post; for that mere claim will not help make
Christ PBBUH take on a spirit form after his
alleged crucifixion and alleged resurrection
so as to conform with *his own* definition of
the resurrected as recorded in your own Bible,
and as confirmed by Paul and explained in
Psalms; nor will it get Christ PBBUH to
some how change his mind concerning
disassociating himself, on the day of
Judgment, from those who call him "Lord
Lord" (which narrows it down to the
"trinitarians" as they are the ones who
consider Christ as "God") and hence work
iniquity.

Likewise, and unless you regard Christ's
PBBUH first person answers as reported in the
New Testament as dishonest, the fact will
remain that the way to inherit eternal life,
according to Christ PBBUH as recorded in four
different places in the Bible (see verse
references in the post above), is not as it is
now claimed to believe Christ PBBUH as "God
incarnate" or to accept an alleged soon-to-
come sacrifice, but rather to simply follow
the Law and to keep the commandments of the
one and only true and good and perfect God.
Your reply does not address any of these
vital points.


IN DEFENCE OF PAUL
==================


Will your defence of Paul make you resort to
considering a genuine intellectual a
person who contradicts "the word of God" in
Numbers (among other places), and the
explicit words and preaching of Christ PBBUH
in the first person as recorded in the New
Testament? Is honesty to you a conscious
effort to regard Christ's PBBUH teaching,
warnings, and explicit answers false and to
be superceded by the those of Paul? I appeal
to all the good God put it in you to reflect
on this.


RUSHING TO JUDGMENT
====================


I urge you not to rush to judgment in
defence of tribal truth, brother. Tribal
truth and divine truth are not always one and
the same. If it was so, then those who
worship statues of stones would argue that
this makes their falsehood into truth, and
this when you and I know they worship stones.

It seems to me that you think I was attacking
Paul and doing so in a dishonest way, which,
for what it is worth, I assure you I was not.
I was just responding to Mr. Grossi's claims.
Be kindly reminded that where you think I was
attacking that I was merely quoting Christ
PBBUH in the first person as reported in the
Bible which Mr. Grossi and others of like
mind seem to hold as "divine scripture."

Contrary to what you might think, there is no
win-lose situation here. It is either that *you*
believe that Paul is indeed what he himself
claims to be, and that *you* also believe
Christ's PBBUH view concerning the Pharisees,
or *you* don't. And naturally it would be
you, not I, who will have to live with this
choice. Fair enough? It is your choice after
all. By merely quoting from the Bible, I
surely am not inventing something new.


ALL PHARISEES ALIKE?
====================


While you might in principal be right in
arguing that not all Pharisees disbelieved or
that they are in need of the Christ's
message, this, however, does not change the
fact that Paul belongs to a group of people
that Christ PBBUH explicitly warned us
against. I apologize, but this point seems in
need of repeating. It is not a matter of
discrimination here, you see, it is simply a
matter of whether or not we believe the
words attributed to Christ PBBUH or not.

And it seems fair to argue that having
one Pharisee become humble enough to seek
guidance from Christ PBBUH as the prophet of
Almighty God is something (hence maybe the
John 3:1-21 you quoted, more on the book of
John later), but to have another preach
almost the exact opposite of what Christ
PBBUH preached throughout the Gospels is an
altogether different thing, wouldn't you
agree? Now it is that last case which is
where the warning of Christ PBBUH becomes
vital. And it is with this in mind that I
mentioned those facts now under discussion.


QUICK NOTES
===========

You referred us briefly to some verses in the
Bible. These are discussed below.


GALATIANS 1: 6-9
----------------

Like Mr. Grossi, you are quoting Paul as if
his words constitute divine revelations.
First of all, (St.) Paul never saw Christ
PBBUH in the flesh.[1] And so to rely
on the books of Paul would mean that you
would be putting the cart in front of the
horse. You must prove that "Christ is God"
first- an impossible task, for as "a man"
(Acts 2: 22) and "son of man," (Luke 9: 58)
Christ PBBUH can never be God because "God is
not a man ... neither the son of man"
(Numbers 23: 19)-, and then and only then go
on to quote Paul's books as divine
revelations. After all, and as a man, and
like any other man, Christ PBBUH could not
have inspired anyone with divine revelations,
let alone inspired Paul with anything of any
sort since he never met him.


Luke 17:1-2
-----------

I have deep respect for the real disciples of
Christ PBBUT. Emphasis is on the word real.
They are even mentioned in the Qur'an,
believe it or not. Read from Qur'an 3: 50-53,
where Christ PBBUH is quoted saying to his
people:

"And (I come) confirming that which was
before me of the Torah, and to make lawful
some of that which was forbidden unto you. I
come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so
keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

"Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so
worship Him. That is a straight path.

"But when Jesus became conscious of their
disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers
in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We
will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah,
and bear thou witness that we have
surrendered (unto Him).

"Our Lord! We believe in that which Thou hast
revealed and we follow him whom Thou hast
sent. Enrol us among those who witness (to
the truth)." (Translation, Qur'an, 3: 50-53)



It is Paul and the scribes that we have a
problem with. And with him being a self-
appointed apostle then he does not count
among the disciples. And it is so even when
people try to make him count as one.

Needless to say, it is Paul of all people
that is attacking the disciples of Christ
PBBUH. Writing in his "Commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians," the father of the
Protestant movement, Martin Luther, says:

"The false apostles used this argument against
Paul: The apostles lived with Christ for
three years. They heard His sermons. They
witnessed His miracles. They themselves
preached and performed miracles while Christ
was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the
flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe:
Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of
the apostles, one of the last and least; or
will you believe those grand apostles who
were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself
long before Paul?"[2]


Need I say one more word? It is Paul, Martin
Luther informs us, who while writing in
Galatians, considers Christ's PBBUH disciples
as false apostles! Does Luke 17:1-2 apply to
him?


ACTS 15: 14
-----------

You referred us to (Acts 15: 14) as proof that an
individual "Pharisee believed in Jesus." Maybe
I am missing something, but there is no
mention of Jesus there:

"Simeon hath declared how God at the first
did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for his name." (Acts 15: 14)


There is no mention of Jesus or a Pharisee
there, Brian. And unless you wish to
contradict the explicit and repeating "word
of God" as found in the Bible that "God is
not a man ... neither the son of man"
(Numbers 23: 19), then Christ PBBUH can never
be God, so that you can assume that this
verse refers to him.

From a logical perspective, it appears that

first you must prove that Numbers is wrong,
and after you do that you need to prove that
"Christ is God" (in spite of him being a "man"
and "son of man," etc.) and then and only
then would it be logical to conclude that the
word "God" refers to "Jesus." Until you do
verses like this do not aid your argument.


JOHN 3: 1-21
------------

As mentioned above, I think we should agree
that a humble Pharisee person seeking
guidance is not the problem. The problem is
that Christ PBBUH warned us against those
others and their leaven. To deny that is to
deny an explicit preaching of Christ PBBUH.
Is it your contention that we should regard
Christ's PBBUH warning as false? There is no
problem here, Brian. We are not generalizing,
just taking heed. It should not be difficult
to spot the bad from the good.

Those who follow Christ PBBUH and his
preaching ("The Lord our God is one
Lord," as opposed to a tri-une lord, follow
the law, keep the commandments this is how
you inherit eternal life, that he was alive
as opposed to having been crucified and later
resurrected, look out for the coming
comforter, etc.) yes the people who follow
these explicit teachings of Christ PBBUH are
our brothers and sisters even if they happen
to be Martians, but we should take heed and
beware of those others who see to it to
invent a doctrine that is in direct
contradiction to the explicit preaching of
Christ PBBUH.

With that said, let me ask you this: did you
know that (St.) John may not have been the
one who wrote that Gospel which bears his
name? In fact, and according to Biblical
scholars: "none of the four Gospels name
their author."[3]


And concerning the Gospel of John
specifically (which contains that 3: 16 you
refer to), H. Latimer Jackson says the
following:

"Yet a day came when the gauntlet was thrown
down boldly to traditional and conventional
belief. As the situation (it still obtains)
has been stated within recent times: 'no book
of the New Testament has met with more
sharply opposed criticism, nor in respect of
the true estimate of any other has there been
so fierce a conflict between love and hate.'
What, it is asked, is the true nature of the
Fourth Gospel? Is it a trustworthy record of
the events it purports to relate? Must it, on
the other hand, be regarded as 'an epic or a
drama or a theological tractate(1)' if
strictly historical it be not? A 'unique
book' and to be approached 'with no ordinary
reverence'; 'the time is past,' it is quickly
added, 'when we can accept without a shade of
misgiving the tradition of its authorship,
and delight ourselves without a question in
its narratives(2).' Misgiving there is, and
misgiving there must be; if questions be
unavoidable, it is because, raised by the
Gospel itself, they stare every honest
student in the face."[4]



Christ PBBUH did warn us of the scribes too,
didn't he?


ACTS 9: 15-23
-------------


Back to (St.) Paul. Please be kindly reminded
that we are told that he never saw Christ
PBBUH in the flesh.[5]

The only time where Christ PBBUH is supposed
to have come in contact with Paul is *not* when
Christ PBBUH was with the other disciples teaching
them, eating with them, showing them and
others the miracles which he did by God's
permission. No. Paul, we are told, saw Christ
in a vision. And the amazing thing is that
even this sole incident is itself full of
contradictions.

In Acts 22: 9, and speaking about that
alleged encounter, Paul tells us himself that
the people who were with him did not hear
the voice, but saw the light. In Acts 9: 7,
however, we are told by Luke that the people
then with Paul heard the voice, but saw no one!


They heard it, but saw it not:

"The men who were traveling with him stood
speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no
one." (Acts 9: 7)


They saw it, but heard it not!

"Now those who were with me saw the light but
did not hear the voice of the one who was
speaking to me." (Acts 22:9)



It is quite difficult not to reach the
obvious conclusion that we have now the Bible
itself as living proof showing Paul's claims
unable to stand up to honest objective cross
examination.




Peace,
Obaid







RESOURCES
=========


1. Apostle, Hutchinson Encyclopeadia, April 2005
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0000146.html

2. Martin Luther. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians.
Translated by T. Graebner, November 2001,
http://www.worldwideschool.org/libr...mmentaryontheEpistletotheGalatians/chap3.html

3. Philip Enrique Lim, Jr: "The Fourth Gospel: a glimpse into its
beauty", April 2005,
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/lim/writings/writings2/john.pdf

4. Jackson, H. Latimer: "The Problem of the Fourth Gospel", April 2005,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson/chapter1.html

5. Apostle, Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, April 2005,
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0000146.html

 

[Johnny Gentile]

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high,
saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou
mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord
did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and
carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and
fruit bats..."

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out
the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the
counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either
count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is
right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be
reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards
thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"

Book Of Armaments

 

[Obaid R.]

Larry Bates,



I truly appreciate the dignified tone of your
response. Kindly allow me to respond.


IN SPITE OF THE BIBLE, NOT BECAUSE OF IT?
=========================================


First I do apologize for the earlier long
discourse; I am afraid this might be just as
long. There is much to discuss and I try
to be through.

Having said that, and to respond to your
point, please be informed that I did not take
any scripture out of context so as to reach a
conclusion of my own. If you'd be kind enough
to point out one incident I will promptly
apologize and will take it back.

With that said, I hope you are fair enough to
agree that if someone makes a claim that then
the same person should back that claim up with
proof. That out of context claim you make,
brother, is made without proof.

Please tell us how Christ the "man" (Acts 2:
22), and "the son of man" (Luke 9: 58) are
not part of the Christian textual sources
or how they were taken out of context. How
is that when it is proclaimed in the Law
attributed to Almighty God that "God is not a
man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23:
19) that this part of the Law (given Acts 2:22,
and Luke 9: 58) is not applicable to Christ
PBBUH or any other man and son of man from
the beginning of time until the end of time.

You see, Larry, if someone were to write an
essay and post satellite images in support
of the fact that earth is spherical, anyone
defending the false notion that the earth is
flat can simply counter: "you are taking
things out of context." But these words will
not do, as any fair person can confirm.
Without proof, a claim is what it is: just a
claim. The burden of proof is on the one who
makes the point to prove it, not on the other
party to refute what was not proven.

In my case, proof was offered in defence of
my assertions from what Christian authorities
themselves regard as Christian textual
sources of divine origin. Does that not carry
enough weight for you so as to be convinced?

If people will read in their textual sources
that "God is not a man ... neither the son of
man" and *yet* go on to believe in- and even
argue the exact opposite of that- just
because they have an opinion, then what is the
Bible for then? If people are going to believe
that Christ the "man" (Acts 2:22), and the "son
of man" (Luke 9: 58) is Almighty God Himself
in spite of Numbers (among others), then what
is the point of these people having textual
sources for their beliefs?

Wouldn't it be better if these people got
together, sat down, and wrote a novel and
made a religion out of it? This is what the
Church of Scientology did. Perhaps then that
novel would agree with their man-made
beliefs, namely that "God is a man and is the
son of man" in spite of (Numbers 23: 19)?
That "God will dwell on the earth" in spite
of (1 Kings 8: 27)? That "there are other
'Gods' with God" and that "there is now someone
like unto God" in spite of (Isaiah 46:9)? And
so on and so forth?

After all, let's face it, Larry, the novel is
there inside your (plural) head, and it is
from which you are all reading to us that
Christ PBBUH the "man" and "the son of man"
is actually God; but whether you realize it
or not, you are doing so in spite of the word
of God as found in the Bible, not because of it.
I truly don't know how to make a mention of
this and not appear like I wish to offend
you, which is truly not my intention, but I
must inform you anyway: does the word "anti"
ring any bells?


PLURAL GOD?
===========


Do you believe that God is one or not? Was it
not Christ PBBUH himself who said that the
"Lord our God is one Lord" (as opposed to a
"tri-une" Lord) or was he not? Is there a
single explicit mention of the word "Trinity"
in the entire encyclopaedia of books called
the Bible? Just one? There is none, can you
believe it?


THE DONKEY RIDE
---------------

Please read from the New Testament:

"... and they sat him thereon." (The Donkey)
(Matthew 21:7)

"... and he sat upon him." (The Donkey)
(Mark 11:7)

"... and they set Jesus thereon." (The Donkey)
(Luke 19:35)

"... Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey)
(John 12:14)


In "Is The Bible God's Word"[1], Ahmed
Deedat writes:

"Could God Almighty have been the author of
this incongruous situation - going out of His
Way to see that all the Gospel writers did
not miss their footing recording of His
"son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City - and
yet "inspiring" them to blackout the news
about His "son's" heavenly flight on the
wings of angels?"


I note the exact same amazing situation here. Why is
it so important to have all the Gospels
mention the donkey incident but not have one single
explicit remark anywhere about what effectively will
decide the eternal fate (repeat: eternal
fate) of many: the alleged "trinity"?
Astonishing, no?


WHY NOT A PENTINITY?
--------------------


Yes "as humans we will never fully understand
the Trinity in this lifetime," but so would
be the case, I put it to you, concerning
"dualnity," (as in two) "quadrupinity",
"pentinity", etc., if there is actually such
words. You see the issue is not merely that our
minds are unable to deal with these
impossible concepts, but also (and equally
importantly) that we must remember that these
concepts were never explicitly mentioned in
the word of God. And so the question that
faces us is this: why a "trinity," and not a
"pentinity"?

Any person can make up things in any aggregate
along the lines of your crude (yet unproven
theory) of what makes God like a man, even when it is
the Bible that states not only that "God is not a
man ... neither the son of man" (Numbers 23:
19), but also that "God is a Spirit" (John
4:24).

Nevertheless, one can add charisma, and the subconscious
mind to your physical, spiritual, and
emotional "aspects" and get that imaginary
"penta-une" false god to be also like man, so
as to make a man into Almighty God, may He be
glorified above all of this. No, Larry. God
is one, period. This is all human invention
and has nothing to do with divine
revelations.

Moreover, do you not see that by saying "Tri"
that you are automatically arguing for
plurality in God? One does not equal three,
Larry, not logically, and not linguistically.
All the universally agreed norms of language
and reason and even algebra are lined up in
defence of God against such illogical
notions. Not that Almighty God needs any
defence.


READ
====

I have read for C. S. Lewis and if I am not
mistaken, seen Josh McDowell lecture on TBN.
But the matter is different here, Larry. I
don't know about McDowell, but I know that C.
S. Lewis was questioning the existence of
God, not whether or not if he believed in a
"trinity" and in Christ PBBUH the "man" and
"son of man" as God that he would then be
doing so in spite of the word of God as
reported in the Bible, not because of it.

And since you made that offer, then allow me
to suggest you read the Qur'an. There is
truly no excuse for anyone not to read it,
especially that it is even available online
for free download.[2]

By the way, did you know that the first verse
revealed on prophet Muhammad PBBUH was
"Read!" upon which the prophet replied to
angel Gabriel PBBUH: "I am not learned." And
this, we hold, is a direct fulfillment of
Isaiah 29:12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and
he saith, I am not learned."
(Isaiah 29: 12)


Here is the first revealed verses of the Qur'an:

"Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
Createth man from a clot. Read: And thy Lord
is the Most Bounteous, Who teacheth by the
pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not."
(Translation, Qur'an, 96: 1)



OPINION VS. DIVINE REVELATIONS
==============================


You and I are entitled to our opinions, as
is the case for all the people of this earth.
These might even matter to someone. When
it comes to the issues of the unseen, however,
then our opinions (including mine I assure
you!) are just worthless. It is not within us
to have our minds dwell in the unseen. This
is the job of divine revelations. This is
their sole purpose: to reveal to us from the
world of the unseen that which we cannot
grasp or know on our own.

If you and I and everyone else are going to
make our opinions matter more than divine
revelations then not only would we be deceiving
ourselves that our inconsequential opinion is
now divine truth (which it is not), but we
would also be very likely at odds with Almighty
God's truth.



HOW DO WE INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?
===============================


Your point that there is only one way to God
is a valid one. The issue is not that, but
whether you and I are following that only
way; or to keep to the topic of this thread,
whether Grossi's post accurately describes
that way.

You say that Christ PBBUH is the only way,
but did you know that Christ PBBUH is not
even your designated prophet? Believe it or
not Muhammad PBBUH is. And I know this might
come as a shock, but they both peace and
blessings of Almighty God be upon them PBBUT,
preached the same religion: the worship of
one God, we inherit heaven by keeping the
law and the commandments, i.e. surrendering
one's will to Almighty God, which is Islam in
a nutshell. They even prayed the same! In
Matthew 26:39 we are told that Christ PBBUH
"fell on his face, and prayed!" Must I remind
you who else falls on their faces to pray?

Moreover, and on at least two occasions in
the Bible, Christ PBBUH is explicitly
proclaiming that he was sent only to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, not to anyone
else of the Gentiles.

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but
unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
(Matthew 15: 24) (see also Matthew 10:6).

And so even when he was the way, Christ PBBUH
was so to his people of the house of Israel
only (and this not according to my convenient
opinion, but according to the reported first
person words attributed to Christ PBBUH), and
only in the span of time that he lived on
earth, and hence this excludes people of
times past and future, especially of the
Gentiles.

With that said, it is indeed true that people
will struggle to come to terms that Islam (of
all religions) is God's divine Truth, which
it is. That is, I have come to believe, is
mankind's present test.

Will they contemplate that they might be
utterly misguided, that Islam of all
religions is the God's Truth, that its Arab
prophet PBBUH of the third world is actually
the seal of the Almighty God's prophets, the
comforter that Christ PBBUH foretold? Will
they follow their pride or will they let
their minds decide?

To have Christianity as the Truth temptation of
mankind makes no sense. The Christian West
boasts to have the power, the money, the
science-- they boast they have everything.
Earthly that is. So they must be right in
worshiping a "trinity"? Right?

But that is an easy test, Larry. If Islam was
the Truth and a Muslim failed the test and
worshiped a "trinity" in stead of his one
true God, he might think that he will gain
something in this world. But a Christian who
gives up the "trinity" and his earthly
wealth, power, and pride that comes with the
magic of the West actually seems to many that
he will lose according to the earthly ways.
No? which is the tougher test, Larry, you
tell me.

A tougher test would be to have you choose
between that alleged earthly power and wealth
and Almighty God's truth, even if hidden in
the weakest and most poor of places. Or was
Christ PBBUH wealthy and powerful compared to
the scribes and Pharisees or the Romans?
David PBBUH to Saul? Moses PBBUH to Pharaoh?
Don't you see the pattern here?

If Christ PBBUH was really "son of God" in
the literal sense or "God" as per the
scripture and word of God, we would be the
first to worship, Larry.

"Say: "If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I
would be the first to worship." Glory to the
Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord
of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free)
from the things they attribute (to him)!"
(Translation, Qur'an 43: 81-82)



But he is not so. And this according to your
own scriptures. People are making Christ "God,"
and believing him to have been crucified and
later resurrected in spite of "the word of
God" as found in the Bible, not because of
it. The only way you can make your beliefs
agree with your sources is if either you
replace them with something that matches your
claims, or that you expunge those parts from
the present scripture that testify that
Christ is "a man" and "son of man" and that
"God is not a man ... neither the son of man"
and that the resurrected are spirits equal
unto the angels having spiritual bodies. For
while these things are still in your Bible
then you have a serious problem.


Here is an ex-practicing American Christian
sharing his thoughts on a topic related to
our discussion:

"I remember thinking a few years ago, when I
was studying about Christianity and Islam,
that it sure would be nice to have Jesus
around today so that I could go up and ask
him two questions: 1) Is it more important to
believe that God is "One" or "Tri-une"? and
2) What do I need to do in order to get into
Heaven? However, once I thought about it a
bit more, I realized that I already had
answers to these questions! The New Testament
shows how Jesus EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY
answered both of these questions - not to
mention the Qur'an! How could a prophet doing
the work of Almighty God do otherwise? If
something such as the "Doctrine of the
Trinity" or having Jesus as one's "Lord and
Personal Savior" is so important, it would be
unjust - if not criminal - for it not to be
an explicit teaching. It should be kept in
mind that Jesus' audience was made up mostly
of Jews, so when he mentioned "One God", they
certainly understood it in an absolute and
non-Trinitarian way.

"Those of you who don't already know Jesus',
peace be upon him, clear answers to these
direct questions, please see Mark 12:28-34;
Matthew 22:35-40; Matthew 19:16-17; Mark
10:17-19 and Luke 18:18-20.

"On top of all this, the New Testament says
that Jesus, peace be upon him, went around
preaching "the gospel". (See Matthew 4:23,
9:35, 11:5; Mark 1:15, 8:35; Luke 4:18, 7:22,
9:6 and 20:1). Based on this fact, Christians
should be able to COMPLETELY derive their
doctrines and "Gospel message" from the words
of Jesus as reported in the New Testament.
However, everyone who has taken a look at the
evidence should be able to conclude that
Christians certainly cannot do this - they
have to appeal to the epistles of Paul and to
an innovated Trinitarian vocabulary. So what
was this "gospel" that Jesus was preaching?
Was it CLEARLY the Divine Incarnation, the
Atonement and the Trinity? I certainly feel
that the longest and most eloquent sermon in
the New Testament (Matthew 5-7), commonly
know as "The Sermon on the Mount", lends
support to the Pure Monotheism of Islam, not
to Trinitarian Christian belief."[3]



Peace,
Obaid





RESOURCES
=========
[1] Deedat, Ahmed, Is The Bible God's Word, March 1980. April 2005:
http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/bible/index.html.
[2] Download a free Qur'an viewer: http://www.divineislam.co.uk/
[3] Squires, Robert, "A Muslim Response to a Christian Response." April
30, 2005:
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=261&page=0




PS: I posted a response to BrianQ here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...dowsxp.network_web/msg/048f37bac5b14460?hl=en

 

[Obaid R.]

Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name


First of all, there was no "diatribe", even
when you can claim there was one. Unless of
course you consider the contents of the Bible
from which I quote as such. Seeing that you
claimed that there was no truth in my post, I
was hoping to read proof in support of your
claim. To my disappointment, there was none.
Just a reference to the word "Allah" made,
alas, in haste.

I wish that you'd considered your words
before you rushed to post. I say that for the
following reason: did you know that there are
around 26 million Christian Arabs living in
the world today? Did you know that their
Arabic Bibles (together with their Arab Jews
brethren) have the word "Allah" exactly where
the word "God" appears in your English Bible?

Furthermore, did you know that in Malta, made
up of a population of staunch Catholics,
people use the word "Allah" for God in their
own language?

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading "Who
is Allah?"[1] and "The Word ALLAH in the
Arabic Bible"[2] both essays by Abu Iman 'Abd
ar-Rahman Robert Squires.

And in case you don't believe either of us,
then visit these links from
bible.gospelcom.net showing you how the word
"Allah" does appear in the Arabic Bible where
the word "God" appears in the English one.



FROM THE ARABIC BIBLE
=====================

Genesis 1: 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+1:1&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on


Genesis 1: 8:
And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there
was morning, a second day.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+1:8&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on


Mark 10: 18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
but one, that is, God.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?pa...uage=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on


John 3: 16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+3:16&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on


Luke 3: 38
the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LUKE+3:38&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on


Mark 1: 14
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the
gospel of God,
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MARK+1:14&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on

Mark 3: 35
Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MARK+3:35&language=arabic&version=IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on





RESOURCES
=========

[1] Squires, Robert, "Who is Allah?" April 30, 2005:
http://www.wol.net.pk/truth/6who.htm
[2] Squires, Robert, "The Word ALLAH in the Arabic Bible" April 30,
2005: http://www.wol.net.pk/truth/6aib.htm

 

[Johnny Gentile]

From the Book of Armaments:

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high,
saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou
mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord
did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and
carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and
fruit bats..."


"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out
the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the
counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either
count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is
right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be
reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards
thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"

 

[radio913]

C'mon. Everyone knows God plays a Martin.

But He also has a de Jonge or two...

Also, i've heard that Satan plays an
old, beat up Takamine.... it's NEVER in
tune, the action is ultra-high, and
it buzzes like mad.



Slick

 

[Mike brown]

Just go away from RMMGA

 

[Nolan Caudill]

My Bible tells me that the Truth sounds like foolishness to a perishing man.
Are you perishing? God threw out a life-raft for you. Jesus is more than
willing to rescue a drowning man. Go to the nearest church(Roman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox), and ask how you can be saved from your sin.

So God only likes the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox churches?

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high,
saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou
mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord
did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and
carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and
fruit bats..."

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out
the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the
counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either
count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is
right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be
reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards
thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"

Book Of Armaments

I really feel sorry for you. How can you live with yourself. Your
conscience must be dead. One day, you will pay for your blasphemy. Get
some true religion soon, or you will wind up in the street, robbing others
for wine and crack.

 

[Johnny Gentile]

The Right Rev. Donald L McDuck sez:


"Get some true religion soon, or you will wind up in the street,
robbing others
for wine and crack."


YEEHAW!! Party time! How soon until I go broke and turn into a thief
and junkie? Next week? June?

Pull your head out of your ass. My conscience is alive and well; just
because it's not spoon-fed to me from a collection of fairytales
doesn't make it less valid.

Go get your little book out to find out how to respond. Try to
remember the one about "judge not...", while you're at it.