Sunday, 4 December 2016

How does the word of God become the son of God who was always with God?



How can Jesus be the son of God when he's supposed to have always been with God before the creation of everything? 

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:7)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3)
-------------

A dilemma Christians fall into Jesus existed before the existence of anything? Yet this man is the son of God? If Jesus was side by side with God then how did he become the son of God? The question is how was he created before the existence of anything Christians normally quote: 

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. (John 1:1)

This is a very weak response if In the beginning Jesus was the Word then he could not have existed physically rather he wasn't mentioned, but kept silent upon untill he was spoken of and became flesh ?

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

If Jesus was the word to start with then it's normal that he could not have been the son of God  since he's the word of God?. If Jesus was the son of God like Christians claim him to be how did he become the son? How did he come to existence, did God (Yahweh) give birth to him physically or created him physically from the beginning as this would contradict John 1:1 in the beginning was the word?

How does the word of God become the son of God who was always with God? In what way did the word become the son? How does God have a son in the first place? If the word is the son alone  then everything God spoke of should also be his son?

For I am the Lord; I will speak the word that I will speak, and it will be performed. It will no longer be delayed... (Ezekiel 12:25)

Let the whole world fear the LORD, and let everyone stand in awe of him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:9)

It's doesn't make any sense when Christians say God has a son, one would only have a son or child if he wants to carry on his heir, since God is eternal then he needs no heir nor does he give his powers to a creation to carry on for him. Like some business man handing over his business to his Son to carry on his legacy.!

Again if we was going to exclude the word and focus on the Jesus as the son alone one wonders how did God have this son? Did he give birth to this son  by himself or or did he just appear from nowhere? Unless you say son of God is not a literal rather Metaphorical statement. 




Thursday, 1 December 2016

Historical Inaccuracy of the Bible

by Ibn Anwar
Christian missionaries tend to make headlines and a big fuss whenever archeoligical finds appear to correspond with the Bible. They will say,”This is proof our Bible is authentic!”. Christian author Patrick Zukeran in his article “Archeology and the Old Testament” on Probe Ministries states,”Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible. Archaeology has therefore played a key role in biblical studies and Christian apologetics in several ways.” Archeology and historicity apparently is a huge thing in Christian thought. Let’s have a brief glance at the historical certainty and accuracy of the Bible shall we?
When was Jesus born according to the Bible?
According to Luke 1:5 tallied with verse 26, Jesus was born in the time of King Herod of Judea.
According to Luke 2:1 Jesus was born during the reign of Caesar.
According to Luke 2:2 Jesus was born during  Quiriunius’ governorship in Syria.
Luke 2:1 and 2:2 overlap with each other i.e. the decree given by Caesar was when Quiriunus was governer of Syria.

What does REAL History say?
1. King Herod or Hordos in Greek lived from 73 BCE(Before Common Era) to 4 BC in Jericho. Which means he died 4 years before Jesus was born.
2. Quirinius only became governer close to 10 years after the death of Herod which was around 6 CE(Common Era) as observed by James Douglas Grant Dunn in “Jesus Remembered” (Eerdmans, 2003) on p. 344 , Erich S. Gruen in “The expansion of the empire under Augustus”, in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10 p. 157 , Geza Vermes in “The Nativity” (Penguin 2006) on p.96 and Anthony Harvey in “A Companion to the New Testament” (Cambridge University Press 2004) on p. 221
This is what Prof. Raymond E. Brown says,
“In the case of Luke’s census by Caesar Augustus of the whole world when Quirinius was governor of Syria(2:1-2), a census that presumably was made when Herod the Great was King of Judea(1:5), we have a similar problem. In the same Birth of the Messiah, I examined all the historical records about the governorship of Quirinius in Syria and census by Augustus. There never was a single census that covered the whole world under Augustus, and the census (of Judea, not involving Nazareth!) that took place under Quirinius occured about ten years after the death of Herod the Great, and presumably, therefore, after the birth of Jesus. One is hard-pressed, then, to think that either evangelist is accurate on public events. Probably postfactum(after the resurrection) the birth of Jesus was associated with loose memories of phenomena that occured in a period of ten years before or after his birth.” (Raymond E. Brown, Response to 101 Questions on the Bible, p. 79)

Truth always Wins

If the Torah was not Corrupted then there was no need for the Zabur (Psalm).

If the Zabur (Psalm) was not Corrupted there no was need for the Injeel (Gospel).

If the Injeel (Gospel) was not Corrupted then there was not need for the Quran.

YET BY THE MERCY OF ALLAH SWT THE QURAN IS UNCORRUPTED 100% AUTHENTIC AND PROTECTED BY ALLAH  SWT HIMSELF

-------------

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). (Surah 15:9)

No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation): It would neither suit them nor would they be able (to produce it). (Surah 26:210-211)

No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise. (Surah 41:42)

And it (the Quran) is not the word of the outcast Shaitan (Satan). (Surah 81:25)

Evidence that the Quran is 100% Protected from Corruption unlike the Previous Scriptures which were entrusted to men, but they failed to protect it.


Ma'mūn Ar-Rashīd, a Muslim Khalīfah, used to host religious gatherings, wherein Muslim scholars discussed various issues.
On one such occasion, a Jew entered the discourse. He was notably well-dressed, respectable in appearance and eloquent in speech. At the end of the discussion, as the crowd began to disperse, Ma'mūn called him and asked, "Are you a Jew?"
"Yes", he replied.
Ma'mūn asked him to accept Islām, but he refused, saying, "I cannot leave my religion and the religion of my ancestors." Saying this, he left.
One year later, he returned, but this time he had converted to Islām. He delivered a scholarly lecture on Islamic jurisprudence. At the end of the gathering, Ma'mūn asked him, "Are you not the same person who attended last year?"
"Yes", he replied.
"What caused you to accept Islām?" Ma'mūn enquired.
He answered, "After leaving your gathering last year, I decided to embark on a comparative study of religions. As I am a fine calligrapher, I wrote three copies of the Torāh in which I added and deleted a few words. With these copies of the Torāh, I entered a synagogue. These copies were brought from me. I then wrote three copies of the Injīl in which I also added and deleted a few words. I entered a church and sold these as well. Then I wrote out three copies of the Qur'ān, and likewise added and deleted a few words. When I presented these to the Muslim booksellers, they examined them before deciding to buy them. They discovered the additions and deletions in them and immediately dispensed with them. I then realised that this book was protected, and embraced Islām."
Allāh has undertaken to protect the Qur'ān. It has been meticulously and miraculously preserved for over fourteen hundred years and will remain so till the end of time.
[Tafsīr Qurṭubī]

---------


Methods of ‘Wahy' on Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam)

Hadhrat Aisha (RA) narrates that one day a Sahâbi, Hadhrat Hârith bin Hisham (RA) asked Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam), how Wahy comes to him, Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) replied: "Sometimes it comes like ringing of a bell and this type of Wahy is toughest for me, and when this process ends, I remember whate­ver has been said. And sometime an angel comes to me in the form of a man". (Sahih Bukhari)

 

Salsalat-ul-Jaras (صلصلة الجرس )

It literally means the ringing of a bell. Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) compared this with the ringing of a bell. It was not because of the fact that it exactly resembled the ringing of bell, then, why was this comparison made? Great Ulema have given different explanations viz.,

i) To know the exact nature of ‘Wahy' is impossible for any body, its actual nature was only experienced by Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam). There were no words to explain its exact nature, that is why Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) explained it with most appropriate words from the sensual world and he (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) found it appropriate to compare it with the ringing of a bell.

ii) Some Ulema believe that it was the sound of the wings of the angels that produced the sound like that of a ringing bell. (Uloom -Ul-Qur'ân)

iii) Imâm-ul-Asr Hadhrat Allâmah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (RA) while quoting Ibn Arabi (RA) says that it was compared to the ringing of a bell, not because its sound resembled with it, but because it resembled the ringing bell in continuity and secondly as it is difficult to localise the direction of the sound of a ringing bell, so was it difficult to localise the direction of ‘Wahy'. Since, it is the word of Allâh, Who has no single direction, so is His word without any particular direction. (Faidhul Bâri)

Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) said that this type of Wahy was toughest for him and it was relatively easy for him when the angel used to come with ‘Wahy' in the form of a man. Hadhrat Aisha (RA) nar­rates: "I have witnessed descent of Wahy on Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) during very cold days of winter, after the completion of Wahy I used to see lot of sweating on the blessed forehead of Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam)." (Sahih Bukhari)

In other tradition it is mentioned that Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) used to turn pale, ashen grey in colour during descent of Wahy.

It is reported that once Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam), placed his blessed head on the thigh of Hadhrat Zayd bin Thâbit (RA) and descent of ‘Wahy' started during that very time, Hadhrat Zayd (RA) felt so much weight on his thigh that he thought it was going to crack.

Hadhrat Umar (RA) says that when ‘Wahy" used to come to Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam), there used to be sounds like those of buzzing of bees around his blessed face. This should not be confused with the earlier Hadith where ‘Wahy' has been compared with ringing of a bell, later (ringing of a bell) was experienced by Rasulullah (Sallallâhu Alaihi Wasallam) and former i.e., buzzing of bees was experienced by the listeners around, hence no confusion

 

1- Ringing of the bells:

In Sahih Bukhari we have the statement of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) describing the phenomenon of revelation;

"Sometimes it is like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have retained what is inspired.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2)

What is the significance of relating revelation to the idea of ringing of a bell? This is not mentioned in any Hadith but some scholars have given quite plausible explanations.

Shaykh Anwar Shah Kashmiri has quoted from Shaykh Ibn Arabi the most subtle explanation;

‘He states that the simile has been used in two respects;

a- Firstly it pertains to the continuity of the sound,

b- And secondly in so far as it is difficult to ascertain the direction of the sound of a bell continuously ringing as it appears to be coming from all directions, His words are heard from all directions. 

The exact perception of this state is not possible without actual observation but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) used the simile of ringing bells to bring it as near to the common understanding as possible,’ (An Approach to Qur’anic Sciences p.40 cf. Faidh Al-Bari 1/19-20)

Karen Armstrong makes a valid point when she says; “Revelation cannot be described in a simple manner.” (Muhammad Prophet of Our Time, p.49 pub. Harper Press 2006)

About this manner of revelation the Prophet (PBUH) said; “It is the hardest of all”. This was owing to the fact that there was no direct and common way of interaction but rather a super-human one. This is what made it the hardest of all the forms of revelation.

2- Angel coming in the human form:

Same Hadith also mentions, “Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I retain whatever he says.”

In another Hadith about this form of revelation it is mentioned, the Prophet (PBUH) said;

“And this form is the easiest for me.” (Al-Ittiqan 1/50 cf. Sahih Abu Awana)

3- Analysis and Conclusion:

Comparison of these two forms of revelation supports the earlier explanation about the nature of revelation that physical concomitants of revelation were due to the communication with another –superhuman- world. The more unnatural the contact more extreme were the concomitants. If the angel came in the human form it was not an extraordinary burden on the Holy Prophet (PBUH). But if only the voice of the angel or directly the words of Allah were heard it was an extraordinary state and Holy Prophet (PBUH) had great burden upon him and faced trouble to grasp what was told.

 

Some refer to the Ahadith which say that “Bell is the instrument of Devil” and relating to the Ahadith in which Prophet (PBUH) said that at the time of revelation he listens to voice like ringing of the bell, they argue that it means the experience of revelation had Satan’s rule in it.

This is over simplification! We have in detail discussed the narration about revelation and sound like ringing of the bell. The very fact that Prophet (PBUH) termed the voice he heard LIKE the voice of ringing bells. The word ‘LIKE’ is significant which proves the absurdity of the parallel drawn between different Ahadith. Ringing of the bells is by no means so novel a phenomenon that Prophet (PBUH) would fail to describe it with certainty instead of making it just an object of simile.

 

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Gospels Dilemma Words Not Heard!!!!!!!!




There are multiple events in the Bible where Jesus is quoted but, given the situation, it would have been impossible for anyone to have heard what he said. Here are two the the events where we will show how christians are absolutely deluded for believing in such a lie written by unknown men's trying to make an earner lol... Firstly we shall read a small passage before the alleged crucifixion then jump to the actual alleged crucifixion and I'll leave the rest for you guys...


-----------------------------


The incident Just Before the Crucifixion as follows:


And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:41-42)
Notice from the above passage it says a Stones cast !!  A stones throw is pretty far. Why go a “stone’s cast away? To get privacy. Jesus advocated private and quiet prayer.. as in a closet like found in Matthew 6:5. Therefore, how does anyone know what Jesus said if he was a stone’s cast withdrawn from them? So, here in Luke 22:41-42 we have words attributed to Jesus that no one could have heard or known..... How did Luke record such a prayer since he had no Holy Spirit helping him nor was he there? Luke 1:1 tells us Luke  heard from others......this begs the question how did that other unknown person hear the plea???? Let's get to our next smashing point.

------------------------------

During the alleged Crucifixion as follows :


And one of the malefactorswhich were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:39-43)

Now just who was it that recorded that conversation? Luke was not present at the crucifixion. None of the apostles were there. They had all run off.
Furthermore, it would have been impossible for anyone to have heard the conversation. The three were talking to each other, not shouting – note the verb used to describe the conversation; “saying”, “said unto Jesus”, “Jesus said”. In their agony they were carrying on a normal conversation that no one could possibly have heard.
Here is an unusual bit of evidence that this observation is correct. Apparently, Filipino devotees have themselves nailed to the cross every Good Friday. This year (2015), a microphone was attached near their mouths so the perverse onlookers could hear their words. Well, there was a glitch in the microphones so NO ONE HEARD WHAT THEY SAID. Copy the link and read the article  (http://  nypost.com/2015/04/03/filipino-devotees-nail-selves-to-cross-in-crucifixion-reenactment/)
It appears that these are very important words; what Jesus said while he was on the cross. Why have not the other three apostles reported this conversation? Because it never happened and even if it did, it could not have been heard and even if it could have been heard, there was no one there to record it. Remember, the apostles had all run off Mark 14:50 The whole thing is fabricated by whoever wrote Luke.

Corrupted texts!

 I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament.  I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages.
I was wrong.
The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after theMasoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.
Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:

  1. The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
  2. The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
  3. The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
  4. The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
  5. The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.

Receiving Corrupted Texts
Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe?  Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text?  Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?
History says “no” . . .
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.
In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.  
A stream cannot rise higher than its source.  If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Epic failure of a so called Christian apologist

Korede will never learn, its time you retire


Korede a nigerian Christian apologist made such a pathetic post on Facebook, I couldn't stop laughing lol. He wrote he will show where Jesus said he is God, I was like WHAT BIBLE IS KOREDE READING!!!! Academic scholars agree there is not such a verse to be found in the entire NT, so where did Korede pull out such a verse.. However after reading koredes joke evidence I thought Korede your times up now u need to retire lol


This is what he wrote read below  :


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ IT YOURSELF

20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?

23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

[Luke 5:20 - 24]

FOR EMPHASIS
--------------------
21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let's analyse the passage Korede posted, so here we have a situation where Jesus is healing anyone that came to him along side a paralysed man, first reverse back to verse 17 and read 

17 One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 

THE POWER OF THE LORD WAS WITH JESUS? But Korede said Jesus was god?
Let's carry on the scribes and Pharisees said only God can forgive sins..? Did Jesus  call himself  God, Or did the scribes and Pharisees call him God? NEITHER.
They only said amongst themselves only God forgives sins which he does  not that they considered Jesus to be God nor did Jesus consider himself to be God

Just because the scribes Pharisees / Jews said that doesn't make him God, if that's the case what about all the other allegations and names they called Jesus 



The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" (John 8:48)


"You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you?"
  (John 7:20)


And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casts he out devils. (Mark 3:22)



Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
(John 10:20)



Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner perform such signs?" So they were divided. (John 9:16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even his family said he is insane


When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:21)



Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (Matthew 4:8)

The devil took Jesus up the a very high mountain?? How can the devil take Jesus up unless he possessed or hypnotised him??

What about Jesus calling the Jews god?

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?
(John 10:34)

What's even more absurd is that Korede intentionally deceived his people, he's well aware even the disciples were able to forgive sins :


Disciples were also able to forgive sins 


And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:22:23)



Shall we conclude that Jesus was also possessed and a sinner just because the Jews said so? If agree with Korede then yes !




Yahweh Puts TERROR and FEAR upon moses so his enemy tremble!!



And from Bamoth [in] the valley that [is] in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon. And the LORD said to Moses: Arise and jorney and pass the stream of Arnon. And see that I give in your hand Sihon king of Heshbon of Amorites. And begin to possess his land and anger him in war. As today I will begin to put TERROR AND FEAR of you upon the nation under all heavens. And when they will hear you, they shall fear and be an anguish from you.
(Numbers 21:20 Samaritan Torah)


------------------------------

Prayer to yahweh!!


Strike them with TERROR, LORD; let the nations know they are only mortal.
(Psalms 9:20 Masoretic tanak)

----------------------------


Yahweh sending terror !!

"I will send my TERROR ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.
(Exodus 23:27 Masoretic Torah )


-------------------------------


Punishment for those who disobey!!


I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you TERROR, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. (Leviticus 26:16 Masoretic Torah )

Take your pick



Abu Hurayra stated, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The most perfect of believers in belief is the best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women.'"
 Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’, nr  278. [at-Tirmidhi]
   

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"


Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "A believing man should not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes something in her character, he should be pleased with some other ­ or another­ trait of hers." [Muslim]
(Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’, nr. 275)

------------------------------------------------------

Torah/ Talmud

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)


commentary on the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. a husband may beat a sinning wife (Hilkhos Ishus 21:10),


(Responsa Binyamin Ze’ev, no. 88). The first three of the five pages of the responsum reflect a very negative attitude toward wife beating. However, on the fourth page, R. Binyamin Ze’ev adds a qualification — that a husband may beat his wife to prevent her from sinning, which includes cursing him or his parents. In other words, R. Binyamin Ze’ev adopts the first view.

If the husband’s property is damaged, compensation is paid to him. He is not only the owner of his wife, he is also the owner of her pregnancy (Ex. 21:22). All of this may have contributed to an attitude that there was nothing wrong with physically abusing women. Although the word ??? (strike, blow, hit, beat) appears in the Bible, it is not associated with wifebeating until the Talmud.


If a husband declares, 'I will neither feed nor provide for my wife', he is compelled to grant her a divorce...If bad breath is a justification for such compulsion [as stated in the above mishnah] her very life is far more so.
(Talmud y.Gitt. 9:9)

A man may divorce his wife if she has merely spoiled a dish for him,
He may also divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b).

It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.
Pesahim 111a.


The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives which obliged their husbands to divorce them: "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband" (Git. 89a). 

The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years): "Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her" (Yeb. 64a).

One sage, Rabbi Eliezer, went further to forbid teaching Torah to daughters by comparing it to the teaching of “tiflut” (Sotah 21b).

Paul and his lies!

Another unreliable passage by lying paul 500 witnesses?? 


After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:6

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the question is who were these 500 people, that the entire 4 gospels were unaware off? None of the 4 gospels even after contradicting each other throughout mention Jesus meeting a mass of people!!

Bear in mind Paul was writing about twenty-five years after the crucifixion contends, without giving a geographic location, 

How come we have no testimony from any of these five hundred people? How come none of these five hundred people ever wrote anything regarding their experiences when they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus?


Challenge to Christians, can you if not all just provide with the names of 50 witnesses out of the 500 if you dare lol... 






can a Christian be a gay bible says yes !

It's ok according to Jesus of the bible 



Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." This suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it to everyone.

Think of this nothing going inside a man defiles him? Not even Penis of another man!!!!!!!! 

If you disagree show us a passage where Jesus condemned homosexuality? According to the NT Jesus never condemned homosexuality!



'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
(Leviticus 18:22)

---------------------



One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
(John 13:23)


Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"
(John 13:25)


Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.
(John 21:7)


Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
(John 21:20)


---------------------------------------------------------------


"In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way. Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a class by himself. 

During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand." 

"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha." 

The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter 10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night. 

"J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." 

Monday, 28 November 2016

Not a shred of evidence

The curtains of the temple were torn during an earthquake, yet not a shred of evidence of this mysterious event. Not a single Jewish rabbi or scribe made mentioned of such a great event how comes?


At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. (Matthew 27:51)
----------------------
Not a shred of evidence from Jewish (antiquity) sources outside the bible. Nothing mentioned from historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Philo. The Talmud doesn't even give a hint, that the TEMPLE CURTAINS WERE TORN IN HALF OR AN EARTHQUAKE HAPPENED HOW COME?
Christian website evidence for Christianity had this to say when someone posted a similar question :

"As far as I know there is not other written source confirming this particular event other than the gospels. It is highly doubtful that any Jews would have reported this incident (other than those who converted to Christianity, of whom there were many). It would have been an embarrassment. In fact, we have relatively few Jewish writers from this time who reported day-to-day events, so the likelihood of this particular event showing up in another extant writing would be quite remote."

---------------------------

What a shame can you imagine an event so sacred to Christians have no historical credibility. No primary to prove this to be true? Not a single outside historical evidence is available

Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. In this work, Edersheim states

The Veils before the Most Holy Place were 40 cubits (60 feet) long, and 20 (30 feet) wide, of the thickness of the palm of the hand, and wrought in 72 squares, which were joined together; and these Veils were so heavy, that, in the exaggerated language of the time, it needed 300 priests to manipulate each. If the Veil was at all such as is described in the Talmud, it could not have been rent in twain by a mere earthquake or the fall of the lintel, although its composition in squares fastened together might explain, how the rent might be as described in the Gospel.

Edersheim does not specifically document the statement about the veil’s thickness, but in the context refers to Talmudic sources. Continuing searches brought up Maurice Henry Harris, Hebraic Literature: Translations from the Talmud, Midrashim and Kabbala (M. Walter Dunne, 1901). In this work, we find:

Three hundred priests were told off [sic; the idea is that they were designated] to draw the veil (of the Temple) aside; for it is taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel declared in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Sagan (or high priest’s substitute), that the thickness of the veil was a handbreadth. It was woven of seventy-two cords, and each cord consisted of twenty-four strands. It was forty cubits long and twenty wide. Eighty-two myriads of damsels worked at it, and two such veils were made every year. When it became soiled, it took three hundred priests to immerse and cleanse it. Chullin (Harris, pp. 195-96)

This quotation references a passage from the Mishnah, the early codification of Judaism’s “oral law” — explanations of the Torah. Here is the passage from Herbert Danby’s translation of the Mishnah:

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simeon son of the Prefect: The veil was one handbreadth thick and was woven on [a loom having] seventy-two rods, and over each rod were twenty-four threads. Its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits; it was made by eighty-two young girls, and they used to make two in every year; and three hundred priests immersed it. (p. 161, bracketed material is part of the original quote, not my addition.)

A curtain so thick and wide cannot tear like paper. This a pure nonsense. No wonder the Jews had a problem with this pathetic story.


--------------------



Korede wrote:
What's the Historical evidence that some Jews were turned into Apes by Allah?
Response : before you Jump to the Quran, maybe you should answer what your book says, since it was available 600 years before the Quran. what is the historical evidence that Lots wife turned into salt? can you prove it historically?

And just for the record. Jews do believe some people were turned into apes, during the tower of babel.
----------------------
THE GENERATION OF THE DIVISION, [THEY] HAVE NO PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME, etc. What did they do? — The [scholars of] the school of Rabbi Shila taught: [They said,] ‘Let us build a tower, ascend to heaven, and cleave it with axes that its waters might gush forth.’ In the West [Eretz Yisrael] they laughed at this: If so, they should have built it on a mountain! (Rather) Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Elazar said: They split up into three parties. One said, ‘Let us ascend and dwell there’; the second, ‘Let us ascend and worship the gods (lit., serve the stars)’; and the third said, ‘Let us ascend and wage war [with God].’ The party which proposed ‘Let us ascend, and dwell there’ — the Lord scattered them. The one that said, ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons. Whilst as for the party which said, ‘Let us ascend and serve idols’ — ‘for there the Lord did confound the language of all the earth.’ It has been taught: Rabbi Natan said: They were all bent on idolatry. Here it is written, ‘let us make us a name,’ while elsewhere it is written, ‘…and make no mention of the name of other gods’ (Shemot 23:13). Just as there (in Shemot) [it means] idolatry, 20 so too here [it means] idolatry. Rabbi Yochanan said: A third of the tower was burnt, a third sunk [into the earth], and a third is still standing. Rav said: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness. Rav Yosef said: Bavel and Borsif are bad omens for Torah. What [is the meaning of the name] Borsif? Rabbi Assi said: An empty well.(Talmud sanhedrin 109)
-----------------------
Read carefully Korede Olawoyin " ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.".
The Jews won't ask the same question as you did, since their own Talmud makes mention of people being turned into apes. even the Jews know better then you.


The problem with Korede is, he likes distancing himself from truth. Yesterday Korede made a post asking "is there any evidence of Jews turning into apes?" today he asks, Hadith from both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim say, Jews turned into rats?
Correction, Hadith states
"A group of Israelite's were lost. Nobody knows what they did" Read carefully what you posted "NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY DID" "NOBODY" thus, how do you expect to have historical evidence when "NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY DID" this would also include historians whom korede is seeking. however the Temple curtain was always in the sight of Jewish rabbis, why then did they refrain from writing the curtain tore in half if hundreds of Jews would be inside worshipping?
In fact, korede maybe you can tell us what happened to the 12 lost tribe historically? What exactly did they all randomly disappear, what exactly happened to them? can you disprove a group of them did not turn into rats? If you can please show us evidence of each and every tribal men.
If Moses was able to turn his staff into a serpent, it's not impossible for God to turn a group of disobedient Jews into apes and rats. Does not you bible say "with God nothing is impossible?" are you disputing matters of the unseen? According to your bible, God can create children from rocks?
Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. (Matthew 3:9)
Assuming you want historical proof for everything, even though you ignored my post on the temple curtain. Maybe you can tell us how can God create children out of rocks and not able to turn into rats or apes? Is your God that limited?
If Satan was able to turn into a snake according to your bible, why do you find it difficult to believe a group of Israelites were turned into rats or apes? If that’s the case, then you have to prove to us historically Satan was the snake who spoke in Eden? Or is that pure belief which you can't prove?
Once again, korede failed to answer Talmud Sanhedrin 109 ‘Let us ascend and wage war,’ were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.".
1) God can create children from rocks, but is unable to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?
2) God allowed Moses's staff to turn into a serpent and crocodile (yes crocodile), yet is unable to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?
3) The Hadith is clear a group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. If nobody knew what they did how are you expecting historical evidence?
4) The Talmud says people who challenged God at the tower of babel were turned to apes, spirits, devils, and night-demons.". What historical evidence you do have to that?
5) If Satan was able to change into a snake, why is it impossible for God to turn disobedient Jews into apes or rats?
And finally, Korede must show us what happened to the 12 lot tribe of Israelite's and that not a single one was transformed into ape or rats. Note the Hadith says "a group of Israelite's were lost. Nobody knows what they did"



----------------

The sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn down the middle. (Luke 23:45)
-----------------------
There is no historical evidence that the temple veil tore in half. What's fascinating is, that we have Judaic source to show how thick the veil was, proving this event was another blunder made up by the unknown writers.
Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simon, the High-priest’s substitute, “The thickness of the veil [of the Temple] was a hand-breadth. It was woven of seventy-two cords, each cord consisting of twenty-four strands. Its length was forty cubits, by twenty in width. It was made by eighty-two myriads of damsels, and two such veils were made every year. It took three hundred priests to immerse and cleanse it [if it becomes unclean].” (Jacob ben Solomon, Agadat En Yaakov, pp. 208 )

Note, Gamaliel was supposed to be the teacher of Paul Acts 22:3. He also broad description given on how large the veil was. Now if Christians say this was supernatural, why didn't the Jewish rabbis, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees record such an event? Surely many people must of witnessed the torn curtain, did they all forget to make mention of such an epic event?

--------------

Another made up story

 

How did Jesus’ escape being caught and trialled by the roman authorities, after causing mass disturbance to the temple?

According to the gospel, Jesus not only vandalised the market in the temple by overturning tables and benches. According to John, Jesus made a whip out of cord and drove out the money changers and even animals.

 This would be impossible for Jesus to do without getting arrested and charged. The temple was always heavily guarded by roman soldiers (Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 323) 

 As money from the trading inside the temple was revenue to the roman authorities taken as tax. Also, Pontius Pilate said, he found no basis to charge Jesus? What even after he caused mayhem/disruption inside the temple in front of a crowd?

 Why didn't the Roman soldiers arrest Jesus and put him on trial? After all, causing disorder and vandalising property which belonged to the roman authorities, would be a capital offence, so what happened?

 Are you saying, the romans and Jews forget such a big incident and didn't think it was good enough to bring it up during the trial of Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate?

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...