Ahmed Eldin: Refuted before even beginning!
Response on the topic “Is Jesus God because he said I
am Alpha and Omega”
By Quennel Gale
Ahmed Eldin finally took the time to respond to my initial article on “Jesus being God because of the alpha and Omega statements”. Needless to say he virtually skips my entire article, including the refutation of various points made in reference to Revelation, and proceeds to jump to the Melchiz’edek part at the very end! I find “Answering-Christianity.com” a very amusing website because they always embellish how their authors presented rebuttals to various articles. For example, Osama Abdallah claims that:
Also, brother
Ahmed Eldin added the following rebuttals -
shredding into pieces the clown, Quennel
Gale:
Apparently both of them believe that ignoring 95% of one’s article is shredding them to pieces! So let’s examine Mr. Eldin’s response. Unlike other authors, I will always point out to my reader where these Muslim propagandists failed to answer specific points.
Gale decided to respond me on the topic “is Jesus God
because he said I am Alpha And Omega”. It is obvious first that he did not
respond to anything; he just played around and gave his own meanings of
Christianity. Personally, I will respond only according what he said about my
argument. Also by reading my response, you will realize that Quennel Gale the
desperate Christian kid literally invented a new doctrine of Christianity.
Response:
Mr. Eldin
does what any typical Muslim apologist does when they can’t present a counter
response:
Can’t you
clearly see that Mr. Eldin doesn’t have a response to my material since it
obviously exposed him for not knowing enough about Christianity? He even has to
resort to Ad hominems:
Quennel Gale the
desperate Christian kid literally invented a new doctrine of Christianity.
Apparently it never occurred to Mr.
Eldin that I’ve been writing in this area since 1997, for over 11 years ,and
have had my own website which is referenced by not only “Answering-Islam” (the
biggest of them all) but by several other Christian apologetic websites as well,
such as Tektonics (www.tektonics.org).
These sites are managed by people who have been in Christian apologetics for
many years, probably longer than I’ve been alive.
Moreover,
as Osama Abdallah clearly shows here:
10/26/2006- We are pleased and blessed to announce that by Allah Almighty's Grace, Mercy and Will, two new brothers, who are also both new converts to Islam, have joined our team! Please join me to welcome brothers Ahmed Eldin from Greece and brother Abdul-Rahman (Brent) Klimaszewski. May Allah Almighty bless the two brothers, and the rest of our team, and continue to bless our readers with continuous and growing knowledge and faith in Islam. Ameen.
Mr. Eldin is actually THE NEW KID ON
THE BLOCK as far as interfaith dialogue is concerned.
What’s interesting is that no
Christian has come to Mr. Eldin’s defence by claiming that I’ve invented new
doctrines of Christianity. However, his master Osama Abdallah has been charged
with perverting and misunderstanding Islam, not just by other Muslims but also
by one of his own former writers! Notice what Bassam Zaatari says in regards to
Osama’s understanding of Islamic theology:
http://www.authenticsunnah.org/ (This website contains the greatest
number of articles on the web that refute false allegations against Islam.
However, I do not agree or share the same views as the webmaster
of authentic sunnah when it comes to basic
Islamic doctrine. For example, the
author's stance on the issue of hadith and how he puts them on the same level
as the Law found in today's Old Testament, his
approval of the september 11 attacks, his
wrongful understanding of the rules behind polygamy marraige, and his
wrongful understanding of the concept of execution of apostates) and other Islamic issues.
Therefore, I only recommend the articles that deal with comparative religion
issues and refutations and not to learn about basic Islamic rulings and
doctrine from this website. (http://call-to-monotheism.com/links)
Zaatari is not alone since other
Muslims like Shahid bin Wahid call Osama a murtadd (http://answering-islam.com/shahid_murtadd_nonsense.htm).
Osama even has Muslims petitioning him to shut down his site for distorting the teachings of Islam! (http://www.petitiononline.com/acosam06/petition.html)
And who can forget the profiles in Quackery which thoroughly exposed Osama (www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/profiles2.html)!
However, I
don’t find any such articles from Christians accusing me of inventing new
doctrine. Why? Because what I’m writing is what has been taught from the very mouth
of Lord Jesus himself, being based on the original doctrine of God.
Concerning my argument, he says:
“Only someone who hasn’t done enough research will assume that this is
superior to what Jesus or God claimed in Revelation. If he actually bothered
reading this passage closely Mr. Eldin would have found out that Mel’s “neither
beginning of days, nor end of life” was, MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD!
Clearly the author of Hebrews is telling us that at best Mel was made
LIKE UNTO JESUS. Hence, if the title of “neither beginning of days, nor end of
life” proves that this is superior then HOW MUCH MORE SUPERIOR IS CHRIST WHOM
MEL IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MERE COPY OF? Notice that the Son of God wasn’t made
like unto Mel but it was the other way around! Apparently Mr. Eldin didn’t see
this or he is blatantly ignoring it.
However, this isn’t even the fun part, as A.T. Robertson explains:
Without father, without
mother, without genealogy (apatwr,
amhtwr, agenealoghto/B>). Alliteration
like Romans
1:30, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found
nowhere else) and MEAING SIMPLY "DEVOID OF ANY GENEOLOGY." The argument is that
from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in
Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to
be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has
been made more mysterious than he is BY READING INTO THIS INTERPRETATION
WHAT IS NOT THERE. Made like (apwmoiwmeno/B>). Perfect
passive participle of apomoiow, old verb, to produce A FACSIMILE OR COPY, only
here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the
man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only
serves as a parallel or illustration. Unto the Son of God (twi uiwi tou qeou). Associative
instrumental case of uio/B>. Abideth a priest (menei iereu/B>). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line
just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues
priest in fact in heaven. Continually (eiߠto
dihneke/B>). Old phrase (for the continuity) like eiߠton
aiwna,
in N.T. only in Hebrews (Romans
7:3; Romans
10:1,14,21). (Source)
Based on the Greek, Melchizedek’s “superiority in existence” IS INTENDED TO BE A FACSMILE OR COPY OF JESUS’ ETERNAL BEING AND PRIESTHOOD! This means that Jesus is the reality of which Mel is merely a copy of, and yet Mr. Eldin claims that a copy is supposed to be better than the original!
This guy needs to stop writing articles since he is killing the credibility of Osama Abdallah and his minions! (On second thought, we want him to continue writing since he helps us expose why Osama’s website is a colossal joke and why Islam is a false religion!)
This verse best describes Mr. Eldin, Sami Zaatari and the rest of the goons at the Answering Nothing website:
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, WHICH IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, as they do the other Scriptures, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.” 2 Peter 3:16”
My response:
It is very clear that according to Gale we have now two sons of God. Jesus and Mels. As you see, Gale invented out of nothing a religion with 4 Gods ( Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and now Mels). Gale support that Mels is a copy of Jesus, I wonder if any Christian worship Mels. The funny thing is that in order Gale to support his polytheistic theory he consults A.T Robertson because simply he canot find anywhere in the bible that Mels is a copy of Jesus. Now Gale must also worship the “copy” of Jesus.
Response:
Apparently Mr. Eldin is so desperate to make Mel another god that he has completely ignored and overlooked what I actually wrote. But before elaborating lets continue with his folly:
However, the main problem remains. Jesus has nothing to do with
Mel’s. This ignorant missionary likes to read commentaries that suit him and
not to read what his unholy book says.
1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest
of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the
kings, and blessed him;
2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of
all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that
also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually
Now I am going to analyze what I read, and I hope Gale will not
run away from answering as he did. Above from the verse we see that this Mel
had no Father, no Mother, and no descent, right? Now I am asking the kid Gale,
how Mels can be a copy of Jesus when Jesus had a Mother, a Father and a
descent. Mels was made like unto the son of God because they had common purpose, that is to preach (verse 3), otherwise we have
a contradiction. Simple and straightforward question.
Clearly, Mels by having no mother no father and no descent is much more
superior to Jesus. Mels is like unto the son only as priest. There is no
evidence that Mels is Jesus or he is a copy of him as the desperate Christian
polytheist try to say. This man is a total joke when he speaks this kind of
nonsense. Moreover, I challenge Gale to show me where Jesus said, “I have a copy
and his name is Mels”. Indeed ridiculous and childish statements. Now Gale must
admit that he do not believe any more in the pagan Trinity but in “Tetranity”
as far as he consider also Mels a God (4 Gods)
How can Jesus be a God when he is not clean and pure and he
is a worm( indicating his inferiority to God)
4. How then can man be justified with God? or
how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are
not pure in his sight.
6. How much less man, that is a worm? and
the son of man, which is a worm?
(Job 25:4-6)
Are you still insist that Jesus is God ?
Gale please bring some real arguments and don’t waste my time.
Response:
Let’s breakdown Mr. Eldin’s response piece by piece and show you not only where he has a bad habit of not reading but is totally confused. This should be fun:
Above from the verse we see that this Mel had no Father, no
Mother, and no descent, right? Now I am asking the kid Gale, how Mels can be a
copy of Jesus when Jesus had a Mother, a Father and a descent.
Answer:
As A.T. Robertson clearly says, this phrase isn’t saying that Mel had no Father or no Mother:
Without father, without
mother, without genealogy (apatwr,
amhtwr, agenealoghto/B>). Alliteration
like Romans
1:30, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found
nowhere else) and MEAING SIMPLY "DEVOID OF ANY GENEOLOGY."
The point of Hebrews is that Mel’s genealogy was deliberately not mentioned in the Bible since God’s intention was to present him as an eternal Being in order to foreshadow Christ’s eternal Person and priesthood.
Mr. Eldin is just reading the English text and assuming that “without Father and Mother” literally means one didn’t have a mother or father. This is the equivalent of me saying:
Writing on the Wall: Literally means one writes on the wall, when it actually means something is showing signs of ending.
To be or not to be: Literally means to exist or not exist, when it actually refers to living or not living (Source)
A house is not a home: Literally means a house isn’t actually a house, when it actually means something must make a house feel like a home.
A house divided by itself cannot stand: Literally meaning a house building, when it actually means the household or same group
As you can clearly see, reading a text without knowing its meaning will clearly steer a person to invent conclusions which are totally opposite of what is actually being said. I’m not shocked Mr. Eldin does this for his best example of a prophet (Muhammad) was illiterate.
Mels was made like unto the son of God because they had common purpose, that is to preach (verse 3), otherwise we have
a contradiction.
Answer:
Mr. Eldin said nothing about Jesus and Mel’s common purpose for preaching. The whole reason he used this verse was to prove that Mel was superior to Jesus:
Because his superiority from Jesus is not only for his eternal existence but also because he does not have a mother, Jesus had a mother, and he does not have a descent, Jesus had descents (two genealogies according to the gospels). So when Christians try to prove the divinity of Jesus by the statement “Iam Alpha and Omega” I advise them to better look the statement of Melchisedec which is much more superior than Jesus. However, Christians do not support that Melchisedec is God.
There was nothing in his argument indicating any relationship to preaching in reference to “the son of God” in verse 3. Mr. Eldin invented this explanation because he couldn’t adequately explain how someone could be superior to the person they are a shadow of. In other words, how could Mel be greater than Jesus when he is only a copy of Christ? After all, imitation is never greater than the object being imitated. As we clearly saw in this passage, Mel was an imitation of Jesus. Yet it gets worse for Mr. Eldin because he further embarrasses himself:
Mels is like unto the son only as priest. There is no evidence
that Mels is Jesus or he is a copy of him as the desperate Christian polytheist
try to say. This man is a total joke when he speaks this kind of nonsense.
Moreover, I challenge Gale to show me where Jesus said, “I have a copy and his
name is Mels”. Indeed ridiculous and childish statements. Now Gale must admit
that he do not believe any more in the pagan Trinity but in “Tetranity” as far
as he consider also Mels a God (4 Gods)
Answer:
No evidence Mr. Eldin? Are you sure? Here was the evidence we had presented:
Made like (apwmoiwmeno/B>). Perfect passive participle of apomoiow, old verb, to produce A FACSIMILE OR COPY, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. Unto the Son of God (twi uiwi tou qeou). Associative instrumental case of uio/B>.
A.T. Robertson already showed us the evidence from the Greek text! The Greek word “apwmoiwmeno,” which is the perfect passive participle of “apomoiow,” literally means in this verse “A FACSIMILE OR COPY” of something that is original! Hence, Mel couldn’t be superior to Jesus for he is only a mere copy! And Mel definitely couldn’t be added into any Godhead nor does the Bible imply that his priesthood is forever:
but with the difference
that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. Continually (eiߠto
dihneke/B>). Old phrase (for the continuity) like eiߠton aiwna, in N.T. only in Hebrews (Romans 7:3; Romans 10:1,14,21). (Source)
Again the NT Greek text shows that Jesus’ priesthood is continuous unlike Mel, since the latter doesn’t abide forever as a priesthood. He merely foreshadows the One that does, the Lord Jesus.
So my questions to Mr. Eldin are:
As you can clearly see, Mr. Eldin isn’t that bright when it comes to doing rebuttals; he claims certain information isn’t present which would be necessary to prove my points when it took me all of 2 seconds to simply go back and point out the evidence which I had already presented! Why do you think we used the NT Greek to back up what we were saying? Because it is evidence! Yet, ignorant people such as Mr. Eldin totally overlook this and try to cover over their inability to engage the issues by asserting that we failed to provide any evidence when the evidence is right there in front of their very eyes!
How can Jesus be a God when he is not clean and pure and he
is a worm( indicating his inferiority to God)
4. How then can man be justified with God? or
how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are
not pure in his sight.
6. How much less man, that is a worm? and
the son of man, which is a worm?
(Job 25:4-6)
Are you still insist that Jesus is God ?
Gale please bring some real arguments and don’t waste my time.
Response:
This is an easy question to answer. First off, this isn’t God saying this at all; let us read who actually made this assertion:
Then Bildad the Shuhite replied: "Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. Can his forces be numbered? Upon whom does his light not rise? How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot— a son of man, who is only a worm!" Job 25:1-6
This is Bildad, not God saying this! Mr. Eldin took this as a refutation of Jesus’ Deity!? Mr. Eldin fails to realize that not everything that Bildad said was approved by God:
“After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.’” Job 42:7-8
This means that we need to examine such statements in light of those passages which reflect God’s perspective of things.
Moreover, even though God agrees that man is born sinful and corrupt, and therefore is impure in his sight, he does explain how a person can be pure in his holy sight:
“But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So THE HOLY ONE TO BE BORN will be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:30-35
A person born of a woman can be pure in God’s sight provided that the individual in question is conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, since this kind of conception would prevent the child from being tainted with original sin. And since Jesus is the only Person born of a virgin by the power of God’s pure Spirit he is the only human being that was born from a woman who was completely pure and holy in God’s sight:
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” Mark 1:24
“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’” John 6:68-69
“He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.” John 7:18
“The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” John 8:29
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.” Hebrews 4:15
“Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.” Hebrews 7:26
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” Hebrews 9:14
The Quran, Mr. Eldin’ satanic scripture, agrees since it emphatically claims that Jesus was born absolutely pure:
And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. S. 19:16-21 Pickthall
Here are two other versions:
He said: I am only an apostle of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy. S. 19:19 Shakir
He said, 'I am but a messenger come from thy Lord, to give thee a boy most pure. Arberry
And here is God’s own assessment of his beloved Son:
“At that time Jesus came from
"BUT OF THE SON he (God) says, 'THY THRONE O GOD, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; THEREFORE GOD, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.'" Hebrews 1:8-9 RSV
Here, the Father calls
Jesus God and says that his throne or reign lasts forever and ever! How much
more must we believe God over Bildad the Shuhite! So much for Mr. Eldin’s
shoddy rebuttal on this topic!
Mr. Eldin’s article can be found here. God bless all.