Rebuttal on “Response on the topic “Is Jesus God because he said I am Alpha and Omega”: Quennel Gale runs away from the argument
By Quennel Gale
In this second response, we will continue to expose
the inconsistent argument of Ahmed Eldin. We will
also show where he ignored evidence refuting his position and indicate where he
failed to present a credible answer to what was presented in my previous
article. Our aim will be to expose Mr. Ahmed for being the amateur that he is
and to highlight his gross ignorance of the views held by both Judaism and
Christianity concerning the issue of Melchiz’edek.
Instead of reposting both my original rebuttal and
follow that up with Mr. Eldin’s response I will simply post his answer to my points
in order to keep this article from being too long. We encourage the readers to
first read through his rebuttal and then read my answer to his assertions.
Response:
The
one who skips whole articles and just scratch the surface is you Gale and here
is the proof. Compare my response to him (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Kyrios_rebuttal.htm
) and then read his response to me here (http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html
) and see for your self how he stops responding on my first two responses where
my article contains 10 detail responses for his initial article! Indeed Gale he
is a clown. Now concerning my “skip” this man obvious doesn’t concentrate on
what he reads because I made it crystal clear in the beginning of my response
that I will only deal with what he said about MY argument NOT what he said
about Zaataris argument. Here is the quote:
MY RESPONSE:
Unlike Mr. Ahmed, I did mention that the other
sections would be addressed in due time. However, in my initial article here: http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_and_Omega.html
Mr. Ahmed only addressed the part relating to Mel in
Hebrews 7. Now as for him dealing with “his argument” wasn’t
it Mr. Ahmed who appealed to Sami Zaatari on “the alpha and Omega” argument?
Yes:
When Muslims corner Christians on the subject “Is Jesus God”? Christians often try to prove the divinity of Jesus by quoting the passage from the Revelation that Jesus said, “I am Alpha and the Omega”. However, this argument is soundly refuted:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm
Hence, by appealing to another person, you are
including them into the argument. If Mr. Eldin didn’t want me to address what Zaatari said, HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER PRESENTED HIS VIEWS IN
HIS PAPER IN THE FIRST PLACE! Only someone totally brainless would think that
it doesn’t make sense to address a source used in a particular argument WHEN
THEY ARE USING THAT VERY SOURCE AS EVIDENCE! Mr. Eldin obviously doesn’t have
the means or “copied and past resources” to refute what was presented against
him so he chose to ignore it. That’s fine by me since my job is to present an
objective article for the neutral person to read. I am not concerned about
convincing Muslim propagandists. As you can see below, Mr. Eldin chose to run
away from what was presented:
“Personally,
I will respond only according what he said about my argument” (http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.htm
) it seems that this man has a serious problem.
MY RESPONSE:
Since he used “Alpha and Omega” as part of his
argument by appealing to Zaatari, Mr. Eldin simply hasn’t responded to anything!
You never use a source that you don’t want people to respond to in your
article. If you do, people can challenge that source if they so choose. We
learned this in College English 101! Unfortunately, Mr. Eldin seems to be
ignorant of this fact which explains why he finds such a problem with me doing
this. He continues by saying:
Qunnel Gale after making some total irrelevant claims and statements concerning the topic of discussion (Is Jesus God because he said I am alpha and omega) he finally finds the courage to address me by saying (not his words but from Robertson) …
Response:
Did you notice the sickness? The verse is Crystal Clear that Mel has no father and no mother!
“3. Without father, without mother, without descent,(Hebrews 7:3)
It is obvious that Gale is desperate; he consults an interpretation that has nothing to do with the text! Amazing situation. On one hand we have a text from Hebrews that says that Mel has no father no mother no descends and yet Gale and Robertson deny that! Please have a look on the text and then to the above supposed interpretation and see for your self the twist…
Response:
Mel is superior
than Jesus because simple as I proved beyond a doubt, even if the pathetic
meaning of Robertson and Gale wants to contradict it, that Mel has no mother,
Jesus had a mother, Mel had no Genealogy Jesus had! Simple,
simple, simple. If Gale and Robertson have any objection then let it be
against their unholy book, not me. Despite the fact of Mel superiority over
Jesus, this does not prevent to have only ONE purpose and that is the preaching
as the verse state:
“Without father,
without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of
life; but made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:3
This is the only
similarity, the priesthood, which is very clear from the verse. Personally I
took it for granted and I didn’t mention it. But also I didn’t know that I had
to rebut an ignorant of the Christian theology like Gale that every time I have
to utter things that are taken for granted. The problem of Gale is that he
cannot understand that Mel is superior to Jesus from the description of Paul,
and he was a copy and was made like unto the son only as priest.
MY RESPONSE:
If you had read my previous article you would find why
I clearly showed that “without father, without mother, without descent” doesn’t
mean that Mel didn’t have a mother or father. I even presented a series of
examples to illustrate my point which Mr. Eldin conveniently omitted and
skipped over.
He is implementing the Islamic practice of concealment
(taqiyya) and deception (khida)
seeing that Islam permits its adherents to lie and deceive disbelievers in
order to protect the interests of Muslims and to prevent the unbelievers from
discovering Islam’s real agenda and from seeing its true face (1, 2, 3)? Mr. Eldin deceives his readers into believing that I somehow ignored
his comments by omitting a portion of my reply. You can easily compare what he
reproduced in his article with my paper to verify this for yourself. He is very
well aware of the fact that if the knowledgeable reader saw my comments in its
entirety they wouldn’t be so quick to assume that Mel literally had no mother
or father!
Moreover, the author of Hebrews was aware of
the hermeneutical principles used by contemporary Jews in interpreting the
Hebrew Bible. He knew that his Jewish readers would not have erroneously
assumed that he literally meant that Melchizedek had no mother or father but,
as the late A.T. Robertson indicated, that Genesis simply didn’t provide any genealogy.
The author saw this as deliberate and highly significant since he correctly
reasoned that God inspired the author to present Melchizedek in such a way as
to resemble God’s eternal Son. As another outstanding Bible exegete, John Gill, noted:
Without father, without mother, without descent?
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his
father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office;
nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any
authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but
scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a
mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in
Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version
renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the
genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. … but
all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ,
who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a
Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with
him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is
gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man,
he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost
his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a
virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God
will raise up, shall be without father.F10 And he is without mother, though
not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a
natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine
sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as
man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in (Matthew 1:1-17)
(Luke 3:23-38) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but
as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were
genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other
writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and
Valentinians. It follows,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died;
and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the
beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from
everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his
office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace,
and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and
man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more,
but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,
but made like unto the Son of God:
in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and
that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not
take this character from his incarnation or resurrection: (The New John Gill Exposition
of the Entire Bible: source;
underline emphasis our)
F10 R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2. (source)
To further support our position that the inspired
author of Hebrews didn’t literally mean that Melchizedek had no genealogy
notice what this extra-biblical Jewish apocryphal writing says about this
exalted high priest:
And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, THE SAME WAS SHEM, went out with his men to meet
Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in
the valley of Melech. And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram GAVE HIM A TENTH from all that he had brought from the spoil of his
enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God. Book of Jasher 16:11-12
Note that this source identifies
Melchizedek/Adonizedek as Shem the son of Noah. Now compare this with the
following:
After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with
him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is,
the King's Valley). Then Melchizedek KING OF SALEM [a] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of
God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator [b] of heaven and earth. And blessed be [f] God Most High, who delivered your enemies into
your hand." Then Abram GAVE
HIM A TENTH OF EVERYTHING. Genesis 14:17-20
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 14:18 That is,
And,
This Melchizedek WAS KING
OF SALEM and priest of God Most High.
He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and
Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of
righteousness"; then also, "king of
According to Jashar the king of
There are additional Jewish sources that
identify Shem as Melchizedek:
R.
Zechariah said on R. Ishmael's authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended
to bring forth the priesthood FROM SHEM, as it is written, And he [sc. MELCHIZEDEK] was the priest of the most high God.
But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He
brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And
he blessed him and said. Blessed be Abram of the most high
God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God. Said
Abraham to him, 'Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that
of his master?' Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is
written, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool; which is followed by, The Lord hath sworn, and
will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,'
meaning, 'because of the words of Melchizedek.' Hence it is written, And he was a priest of the most High God, [implying that] he
was a priest, but not his seed. Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 32b 7-14
Here are some quotes from the Targums, which
are Aramaic translations and interpretations of the Hebrew Tanakh:
|
Tg. Onq. 17 Then the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after [Abram] had returned from slaying Chedor-laomer and the kings who were with him to the empty plain, which is the race-course of the king. |
Tg. Ps.-J. 17 When he returned from defeating Chedor-laomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the levelled plain, which is the king’s race-course. |
Tg. Neof. 17 And the king of Sodom came out to meet him, after he had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer aand the kings who were with him, in the Valley of the Gardensa, that is, the valley of the king. |
Frg. Tgs.PVNL; 17a-a and the kings who were with him in the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit house] of the Valley of the King (Frg. Tgs.VNL); to the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit: house] of the Valley of the King (Tg. Neof. marg). |
|
18
Now Melkhizedek, king of |
18
And the righteous king – he is Shem, the son of Noah – the king of |
18
aAnd Melchisedech, the king of
|
18a-a
and Melchisedek the king of |
|
19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be |
19 He blessed him and said: “Blessed be |
19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed is |
food and wine, and he was standing, ministe- |
This Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about Melchizedek:
MELCHIZEDEK
King of Salem and priest of the Most High in the time of Abraham. He brought out bread and wine, blessed Abram, and received tithes from him (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Reference is made to him in Ps. cx. 4, where the victorious ruler is declared to be "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." The story is neither an invention nor the product of a copyist's error, as Cheyne ("Encyc. Bibl.") thinks, but rests upon ancient Jerusalemic tradition (as Josephus, "B. J." vi. 10, affirms; comp. Gunkel, "Genesis," 1901, p. 261), "Zedek" being an ancient name of Jerusalem (probably connected with the Phenician Συδνκ = "Zedek" = "Jupiter"; comp. Shab. 156a, b; Gen. R. xliii.; Pesiḳ. R. 20; see Baudissin, "Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch." 1876, i. 14-15). Hence "'ir ha-ẓedeḳ" (Isa. i. 21, 26), "neweh ẓedeḳ" (Jer. xxxi. 23, l. 7), "sha'are ẓedeḳ" (Ps. cxviii. 19). The city's first king, accordingly, was known either as "Adoni Zedek" (Josh. x. 1 et seq. ; comp. Judges i. 5-7, where "Adonizedek" is the correct reading) or as "Malkizedek." The fact that he united the royal with the priestly dignity, like all ancient (heathen) kings, made him a welcome type to the composer of the triumphal song (Ps. cx.). (Jewish Encyclopedia, Source)
And:
Type of
Ancient Monotheism.
But to the Jewish propagandists of Alexandria, who were eager to win proselytes
for Judaism without submitting them to the rite of circumcision, Melchizedek
appealed with especial force as a type of the monotheist of the pre-Abrahamic time
or of non-Jewish race, like Enoch. Like Enoch, too, he was apotheosized. He was
placed in the same category with Elijah, the Messiah ben Joseph, and the
Messiah ben David (Suk. 52b, where "Kohenẓedek" should be corrected to "Malkiẓedeḳ"). The singular feature of supernatural origin is ascribed to
all four, in that they are described as being "without father and without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but
made like unto the son of God abiding forever" (Heb. vii 2-3; comp. Ruth.
R. v. 3, where the original text [see "Pugio Fidei," p. 125] referred
also to Ps. cx. 4, Isa. liii. 2, and Zech. vi. 12, comp. Yalḳ., Reubeni Bereshit, 9d;
Epiphanius, "Hæresis," lv. 3).
According to Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxxvii., Abraham learned the practise of charity
from Melchizedek. Philo speaks of him as "the logos, the priest whose
inheritance is the true God" ("De Allegoriis Legum," iii.
26).The Samaritans identified the city of Salem with their sanctuary on Mount
Gerizim (see LXX., Gen. xxxiii. 18; comp. Eusebius, "Præparatio
Evangelica," ix. 17).
The
Melchizedekites.
The rabbis of later generations, rather antagonistic to the cosmopolitan
monotheism of
The above sources all substantiate my
position that Hebrews 7:3 doesn’t mean that Melchizedek didn’t have a
genealogy, but that Genesis 14 doesn’t provide one for a very significant
reason; God wanted to present him as a type of Christ, God’s eternal Son and
high priest. As the late Greek scholar A.T. Robertson
correctly noted:
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 MEANING 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>).
Hence, Mr. Eldin’s appeal to this specific part of the
text,
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without
beginning of days
Only serves to show that he doesn’t understand the
history of the passage or the purpose of the author in using the silence of
Genesis 14 concerning the origin of Melchizedek to illustrate his case.
Here is how Mr. Eldin
attempts to deal with the Greek text of Hebrews 7:3:
Response:
Yes, a copy and
was made like unto the Son only for priesthood, but according to the statement
of Paul:
“Without father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3
Jesus was inferior
because he had a mother, and descent.
And:
Yes, a copy and was made like unto the Son only for priesthood, but according to the statement of Paul:
MY
RESPONSE:
Mr. Eldin completely ignores my discussion of aphomoioo which
clearly demonstrated that Jesus is not inferior, but actually superior to
Melchizedek. Note, once again, the words of Robertson concerning the meaning
and implication of this Greek word:
Made like (apwmoiwmeno/B>). Perfect passive participle of apomoiow, old verb, to produce A
FACSIMILE OR COPY, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture
drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does
not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. Unto the
Son of God (twi uiwi tou qeou). Associative instrumental
case of uio/B>.
Let the reader observe that the word aphomoiomenos, which is perfect passive
participle of aphomoioo, literally means “A FACSIMILE OR COPY” of
something that is original. Here is another source which confirms this point:
Strong’s # G871
1) to cause a model to pass off
into an image or shape like it
2) to express itself in it, to copy
3) to produce a facsimile
4) to be made like, render similar (Source)
What this shows is that the writer of Hebrews is saying that Melchizedek is actually inferior since he is merely a shadow, a copy of the Lord Jesus.
Moreover, here is what
Evangelical writers George W. Zeller & Ronald Showers say regarding Melchizedek’s resemblance to Christ and
how this is meant to establish the eternal nature of the Son:
“The strong testimony that this
verse presents for the eternal Sonship of Christ must not be missed. The
blessed Spirit of God guided the pen of Moses in such a way that the biography
of Melchizedek says nothing about his parents or his birth or his age or his
death. These deliberate omissions were for the purpose of presenting
Melchizedek as a type of the Son of God... As the ‘Son of God’ He was
without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of
days, nor end of life.’” (Zeller & Showers, The
Eternal Sonship of Christ - A Timely Defense of this Vital Doctrine
[Loizeux Brothers, Inc., 1993 by George Zeller], p. 48; italic and underline
emphasis ours)
With the foregoing
in mind, it is very amusing to see Mr. Eldin trying to teach us what the Bible
and Judeo-Christian sources are really saying about Melchizedek in light of his
blatant ignorance of ancient Jewish beliefs concerning this historical figure
and the hermeneutical principles employed by the Jews in interpreting the
Scriptures.
What makes this all the more amusing is that the early
Muslim polemicists never used the example of Melchizedek against the divinity
of Jesus. Nor do we find the Quran censuring Jews or Christians for deifying
Melchizedek, even though it criticizes them for attributing divinity to Jesus
and Ezra. Why no mention of this? Could it be that even Muhammad knew that
neither Jews nor Christians understood these Biblical passages to mean that
Melchizedek was actually a divine figure?
It gets even worse for Mr. Eldin since Hebrews has God calling Jesus
God:
"BUT
OF THE SON he (God) says, 'THY THRONE O GOD, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is
the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
THEREFORE GOD, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond
thy comrades.'" Hebrews 1:8-9 RSV
Something that is never said of Melchizedek. Now how does Mr. Eldin respond to this point? Look and see:
The verse Hebrews 1:8-9 is NOT the words
of God or Jesus. It is the words of Paul. This amateur missionary has a bad
habit of repeating himself. Anyway, once again he exposed and totally destroyed
by the Grace of Allah.
Notice
his utter desperation and blatant hypocrisy. He first tried to use Hebrews 7 to
disprove the Deity of Christ, but now seeks to discredit the testimony of this
very same book when it refutes his entire case!
Here are
the problems that Mr. Eldin faces. If he accepts Hebrews 7:3 THEN he must
accept Hebrews 1:8 also. But if he rejects Hebrews 1:8 because it is written by
Paul THEN he must also reject Hebrews 7:3 since this is also written by Paul.
If Paul is a false Apostle then the idea that Melchizedek is superior to Jesus
must be rejected since this also originated from someone who cannot be trusted
to present the truth of God.
In other words, by maligning the Apostle Paul Mr. Eldin has actually
refuted his own argument. He obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too.
We are omitting his points which have already been refuted.
2. It doesn’t matter if he is
identical or not, you claim that he is a copy and as a copy he shares his
attributes, therefore he shares his Deity therefore his God, this
the reason why I said that you invented a new formula for the stupid
theory of trinity. By the way isn’t you Christians that say that Jesus is not
the Father but SHARES his nature? Well in other words you claim a copy of the
Father and this copy is Jesus. The same apply for Mel, and don’t forget that
all these is yours hypothesis not mine.
3. Already answered above. You clamed that Mel
reflect Jesus nature? The same you say about Jesus with the father, but
this didn’t stopped you Christians to make him a God, why not also Mel that
reflects the nature of Jesus if he is a copy? Again don’t forget that Mel is
superior according to the author of Hebrews no matter what your Robertson or
you say is crystal clear from the verse: “Without father, without mother, without
descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like
to the Son of God; stays a priest continually. Hebrews 7:3
4.
Robertson is not the evidence. Simply
because I answered also to the nonsense of Robertson. And Robertson
meaning has nothing to do with the text. He claimed and you clamed that Mel
copy of Jesus therefore shares his nature, Jesus is God (according to you)
therefore Mel is God as a copy.
MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Eldin has committed
several fallacies which need to be addressed. First, he commits the fallacy of
false analogy since Jesus isn’t merely a copy or facsimile of God, but rather
he is the exact representation, the perfect imprint of God’s infinite and
eternal essence:
“He
is the radiance of His Glory and the exact representation/imprint
(charakter) of His substance, who sustains the universe by his powerful
word…” Hebrews 1:3
Note that the author didn’t
use the word aphomoioo but charakter, a word which refers to the
very exact, perfect replica of a thing. The only way for Jesus to be the exact
representation of God’s being is if he is fully, completely and eternally God
since a finite, temporal creature can never be the perfect imprint of God’s
infinite and uncreated substance. Now had the writer said that Melchizedek was
the charakter of Jesus’ being then Mr. Eldin would have had a case. But, unfortunately for him, that is not what the
author wrote.
Secondly, he has erroneously
assumed that just because two things or persons are similar they are therefore
the same or identical in every aspect. Melchizedek sharing similar traits with
Christ doesn’t mean that he is exactly identical to him in every way. Rather,
as the author noted, Melchizedek’s similarities lie in the fact that Genesis
portrays him as having no origin and as being an eternal priest, traits which
Jesus truly possesses.
And we need to repeat this
point again, since it is obvious Mr. Eldin has a hard time comprehending what
we write; the point of the writer is NOT that Melchiz’edek is an eternal being.
Rather, his point was that Genesis deliberately omitted the details of his
birth, place of origin, death, genealogy etc. since God wanted to portray him
as a picture of the One who is truly without origin, without genealogy (in
relation to his Deity), having no beginning or end, namely the Lord Jesus.
Mr. Eldin gets real
desperate here:
Response:
Indeed this clown is out of his
mind, he has no idea of what he speaks. Note the twisting and the deception of
this man.
God was angry with Eliphaz the Temanite
not with Bildad, Gale failed to make even this distinction! Check again
Gale:
“After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz
the Temanite”
Also even (for the sake of the argument) if God was angry with
Bildad this does not mean that his angry because he said the specific
statement:
4. How then can man be justified with God? or
how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are
not pure in his sight.
6. How much less man, that is a worm? and
the son of man, which is a worm?
(Job 25:4-6)
But this is not case at all. God was angry with Eliphaz not with Bildad, and even if he was with Bildad we have no evidences that his statement is invalid in the sight of the Biblical God, therefore it’s valid and indicate that Jesus is a worm and does not worth anything in the sight of God. Therefore Gale’s whole argument destroyed!
MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Eldin couldn’t have provided any greater proof that he should refrain from debating and return to whatever he was doing before he decided to become an apologist for this false, satanic Muhammadan cult. Here is what he conveniently overlooked:
After
the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite,
"I am angry with you AND YOUR TWO FRIENDS,
because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So
now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a
burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you,
and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly.
You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." So
Eliphaz the Temanite, BILDAD THE SHUHITE and Zophar the Naamathite did what the
LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. Job 42:7-9
Mr. Eldin believes that God was only angry with Eliphaz
even though the text went on to mention Eliphaz’s friends and even referred to
Bildad by name! The passage also mentions that Eliphaz and Bildad did what God commanded them to do by
sacrificing the bulls and rams so God would accept Job’s prayer on their
behalf.
Let us again
repeat the purpose for these sacrifices:
I
am angry with you AND YOUR TWO FRIENDS, because you have not spoken of me what
is right,
as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my
servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will
pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not
deal with you according to your folly.
The question
that Mr. Eldin needs to answer is why did Bildad offer up sacrifices if God
wasn’t also angry with him? Isn’t this is clear evidence that Mr. Eldin knows
absolutely nothing about the Bible or Christianity, and doesn’t have a clue
what his own false religion actually teaches?
Response:
Gale over and over again plays with the verses and twists the words. He says that the only way for a person to be pure is that the individual in question is conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. But this not the case at all. The verse never mentions anywhere that a person must be born from a virgin, again this is the doctrine of Gale. The only thing that the verse says is that Jesus will be holy because he will be conceived from the Holy Spirit, that’s all. Read again for your own:
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
The King James Version support my
argument further:
And the angel answered and said to
her, The Holy Ghost shall come on you, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall
be born of you shall be called the Son of God.
There is nothing unique if Jesus will
be born by the Holy Ghost because others have been born in a similar way:
36. And, behold, your cousin
Elisabeth, she has also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth
month with her, who was called barren.
37. For with God nothing shall be
impossible.
38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid
of the Lord; be it to me according to your word. And the angel departed from
her. Luke 1: 36-38
It is obvious why Gale afraid to post the
other verses that come after Luke 1:35, because it shows that Elizabeth is a
barren woman and she will conceive a child. The author of Luke put it under the
same category of the birth of Jesus, as a miracle. The child of Elizabeth also
conceived by the Holy Spirit;
13. But the angel said to him, Fear
not, Zacharias: for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elisabeth shall bear
you a son, and you shall call his name John.
14. And you shall have joy and
gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15. For he shall be great in the sight
of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be
filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Luke 1:13-15
Like Jesus!
Even Zachariah was filled with Holy
Ghost:
And his father Zacharias was filled
with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Luke 1:67
Also we have many holy figures from
the Bible even nations!
And you shall be to me a kingdom of
priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak
to the children of Israel. Exodus 19: 6
And you shall be
holy men to me: neither shall you eat any flesh that
is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. Exodus 22:31
Therefore it’s no big deal that Jesus is Holy.
MY RESPONSE:
It is obvious that Mr. Eldin has lost track of my argument and actually ends up refuting himself in the process!
Notice what Mr. Eldin originally posted:
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.
Mr. Eldin’s
argument was that Jesus couldn’t be pure and clean because he was born of a
woman. He then quoted Bildad’s words to show that, “no one born of a woman can
be clean”. We showed that Bildad was wrong for what he said by quoting the
verses where God rebuked him. Mr. Eldin objected saying that God wasn’t angry
with Bildad implying that Bildad was therefore correct.
But he now just posted
verses showing that there were plenty of people who were holy without needing
to be born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, THEREBY PROVING THAT BILDAD WAS
WRONG! IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS ACTUALLY ENDED UP PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
TO PROVE THAT WHAT WE SAID ABOUT BILDAD WAS CORRECT AFTER ALL!
Note that:
1. Mr. Eldin claims that no man born of a woman is pure or clean.
2. We responded by showing that Jesus was born of a woman who conceived
by the Holy Spirit, thereby insuring that he would be pure and clean.
3. In his haste to refute our claim Mr. Eldin provided examples such as
Zachariah and others to prove that Jesus wasn’t the only who was pure and
clean.
4. In so doing, HE ENDS UP REFUTING HIS EARLIER STATEMENT BECAUSE HE HAS NOW SHOWN THAT THERE WERE OTHERS LIKE JESUS WHO WERE PURE AND CLEAN! Hence, Mr. Eldin has established our case that Bildad was wrong!
What more can I
say! My argument had nothing to do with whether there were others who, besides
Jesus, were pure and holy. I was simply dealing with Mr. Eldin’s appeal to Job
25:4-6 to prove that NO MAN BORN OF A WOMAN IS CLEAN AND PURE.
And Mr. Eldin has the nerve to call me an
amateur! For one to claim that, “no man born of a woman is pure and clean” and
then come back and provide evidence of “men who are holy, pure and clean” is
beyond laughable!
Response:
Concerning Mark 1:9-11 there is
nothing unique with Jesus being called the Son, others have been called Sons of
God ( Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 2:7) Some people even called GODS! (Psalms 82:6)
MY RESPONSE:
Here, Mr. Eldin
again commits a false analogy since Jesus isn’t merely a Son of God in the
sense that the others were. Rather, Jesus identified himself God’s
very own unique Son:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only Son (ton huion ton monogenee), that whoever believes in him shall
not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but
whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed
in the name of God's one and only Son (tou monogenous huiou tou theou).
John 3:16, 18
The term monogenes literally means of sole descent, only one of its
kind, unique. Thus, Jesus is the only Son of his kind, God’s Son in a unique
manner, Son in a sense that no one else is. The word used for ONLY is Monogenes.
Monogenes
Definition:
1.single of its kind, only a. used of only
sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their
parents)
b.used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son
of God
This word
differentiates him from anybody else in the Bible. A perfect example of this
word’s significance can be found in Hebrews 11:17-18:
“By faith Abraham when he was tested,
offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only
(monogenes) begotten son of whom it was said, IN ISAAC YOUR SEED
SHALL BE CALLED.”
Here we see that Isaac was called Abraham’s only
begotten son not because he was his only child. Rather, Isaac was his unique
son because it was only through him that Abraham’s seed and God’s covenant
would be established.
In a similar
manner, even though there are many in the Bible that were called sons, only Jesus is said to be God one and only unique Son.
Even the Jews
realized that Jesus was claiming to be a Son in a very unique and special way
which made him equal to God:
“And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this
on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My
Father is working still, AND I AM WORKING.’ This was why the Jews
sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but
also called God his Father, making himself equal (ison) with God."
John 5:16-18
Note how those who
were completely familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and knew full well that God
had many sons still realized that Jesus’ claims were unique since he was
clearly placing himself on par with God!
Mr. Eldin tries to soften the impact of the Jews’ understanding
since he says that:
Concerning the argument about the day of Sabbath has been already
addressed:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/lord_of_sabbath.htm
Also the Jews understood that Jesus is God because Jesus called
God his father (God also said that he is the father of
Mr.
Eldin erroneously assumes that just because the Jews were wrong or
misunderstood Jesus in certain instances this therefore proves that they also
misunderstood his claims here. There are two main problems with this view.
First, it isn’t simply Jesus’ opponents who understood him to be making Divine
claims since even the Apostles came to this same conclusion:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
been made… He was in the world, and though the world was made
through him, the world did not recognize him… 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 1:1-3, 10, 14
“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus
told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who
have not seen and yet have believed.’ Jesus did many other
miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in
this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his
name.” John 20:28-31
Secondly, if the Jews did misunderstand Jesus then
Jesus could have simply corrected their misunderstanding by telling them point
blank that he was not claiming to be equal with God. Yet, instead of correcting
them, Jesus actually goes on to prove that he is co-equal with God, and yet
inseparable from him:
“Jesus gave them this answer: ‘I tell you the truth, the Son can do
nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because
whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the
Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even
greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives
them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that
all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not
honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me
has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to
life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the
dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live.
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has
granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him
authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for
a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE
and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have
done evil will rise to be condemned.’” John 5:19-29
Jesus
claims to be able to do exactly what God alone can do and that he is to receive
the very same exact honor which individuals must give to God!
The foregoing shows that the Jews correctly understood Jesus at this point.
Mr. Eldin also appealed to Psalms 2:7 to disprove Jesus’ unique Sonship. Mr. Eldin doesn’t seem to recognize the implication of that one either.
In Psalm 2 we
have a prophetic picture which should be read in its entirety:
Why
have nations tumultuously assembled? And do peoples meditate vanity? Station
themselves do kings of the earth, And princes have
been united together, Against Jehovah, AND AGAINST HIS MESSIAH (Mashiho): `Let us draw off Their cords, And cast
from us Their thick bands.' He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The
Lord doth mock at them. Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them: `And I -- I have
anointed My King, Upon
Note that in vv. 2-3 it describes the time
when the nations will stand against God and against his Anointed One (Mashiho, from which our English word Messiah comes).
God says in verse 6 that he will nevertheless establish this Messiah as his
King on
In verse 7 Messiah steps forward to
declare the decree by which his coronation shall be accomplished, a decree
where God affirms his Messiah’s Divine begetting or
Sonship.
Finally, in Psalm 2:11-12 we are solemnly
instructed:
Serve the LORD
with fear, And rejoice with trembling. KISS THE SON
(nashqu bar), lest He be angry, And you
perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all
those who put their trust in Him. Psalms 2:11-12
The Hebrew for "kiss the
Son" is nashqu bar. Even if this
is translated, as some would have it, "Do homage in purity," the
homage is to the Lord of verse 2 and to the Son of verse 7. The Tanakh clearly indicates that there is a
Divine personality who is called the Son of God who must be paid homage to!
Once again we see that Mr. Eldin
has presented absolutely nothing in his article. He repeats outdated arguments
he doesn’t understand the usage of the text he claims to write about and he is
also ignorant of Judeo Christian history. What more can I say other than he is
nothing more than a mere amateur.
Mr. Eldin’s article can be found here. God bless all.