Rebuttal: Does
“Kyrios”
really imply Deity”? Silencing once more the
desperate amateur Christian Quennel
Gale
By
Ahmed Eldin
The
desperate Christian propagandist continues his pathetic so called
“responses”
to me. In this paper I am going to respond on all of his pathetic
attempts and
arguments to show to you and justify you why this man is desperate. My
formula
of answering this clown will be like the previous one, for example I
want the
reader to read his article and then mine because I don’t want
to flood the text
by quoting him. I just am going to refute him directly by answering his
“responses” to me. So let us justify his immaturity.
First
of
all, as I said read his article: http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html
Answering
and refuting his whole article:
Someone
must tell that guy that our subject of discussion is not the Holy Quran
words
and interpretations, or the Prophet Muhammad (p). Our dialogue is about
“Does Kyrios
really imply Deity?” by analyzing the New Testament.
Easily you can understand why Gale tries to hide himself by speaking
about the
Quran. Quran or general Islam is NOT our topic of discussion Gale, yet
this
amateur calls me a person “that divert attention away from the
Quran”. Wake up Gale and concentrate on
the topic please.
But
let as
answering this amateur missionary. Gale must realize the use of the
word “Lord”
in the Quran. “The actual word used in the Quran is
“Rabb”.
There is no proper equivalent for “Rabb”
in the
English language. It means the One and the Only Lord for all the
Universe, its
Creator, Owner, Organizer, Provider, Master, Planner, Sustainer,
Cherisher, and
Giver of security. Rabb
is also one of the Names of
Allah. We have used the word “Lord” as the nearest
to Rabb.
All occur nesses of “Lord” in the interpretation of
the meanings of the Noble
Quran actually mean Rabb
and should be understood as
such”. (Source: Interpretation of
the
meanings of the Noble Quran in the English language, a summarized
version of At
Tabari, Al Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir
with comments from Sahih
Al Bukhari, By Dr.
Muhammad
Muhsin Khan, page 11.)
Therefore
it cannot be compared the word “Kyrios”
with the word
“Rabb”.
So the immaturity of this missionary who
falsely appeals to the Quran and its used of the word
“Lord” are silenced.
Furthermore the desperate missionary says that the Prophets called
Lords from
the Quran or from the Islamic perspective. That man has serious problem
of
twisting my words. If you check my argument I said that the BIBLE
REFERS THE
PROPHETS AS LORDS NOT THE QURAN. It is obviously that the missionary is
ignorant or he doesn’t know how to argue.
Continuing
with his so called “response” Gale returns to the
subject of discussion. Here
we must remind to this missionary what the Greek word “Kyrios”
really means:
|
kurioV |
from kuros (supremacy); supreme in
authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master
(as a respectful title):-- God, Lord,
master, Sir. |
Source
: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
Also
visit: http://www.whoisjesus.com/yhwh-LORD.html
We see
from the above
that the word “Kyrios”
does not necessarily means
Deity. He further claims that “Shamoun
and I
demonstrated, the NT uses
the word Lord, or more
specifically “Kyrios,”
as a synonym for God’s
covenant name YHWH. We cited references where the NT quotes an OT text
which
uses the name YHWH and substitutes it with “Kyrios”.
We further showed how the NT writers applied to Jesus specific OT texts
which
speak of YHWH, proving that the NT authors were clearly calling Jesus
Lord in
the sense of his being YHWH.” In my turn I claim
that Shamoun
and Gale didn’t demonstrated anything at all, both of them
and their pathetic
arguments are soundly refuted:
Shamoun
refuted here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Response_to_Sam_Shamoun_1.htm
After I
refuted Shamoun, it was
Gale turns to be exposed as his friend. He
wrote two “responses” to me here: http://answer-islam.org/q_jesus_kurios.html and http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_and_Omega.html
Then
I answered his articles: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.htm
, and http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/Kyrios_rebuttal.htm
Then
he “responded” to me here http://answer-islam.org/Alpha_And_Omega_rebuttal.html
and http://answer-islam.org/Kyrios_rebuttal1.html
, By the Grace of Allah I silencing him again in this paper and Insa Allah every time that he
tries to argue against the
religion of God Almighty (Islam) - he will find me on his way-(as we
Greeks
say) J
Actually
the “response” of Gale is nothing more than a
repeating procedure of his old
articles that have been answered above. He says that: “And yet
Jesus is said to have the exclusive characteristics of God, can
perform the works which God alone can perform, and there are several OT
references which speaks of Yahweh that are applied to him! Here are
some
examples to help drive home this point:”
Let
us see these exclusive characteristics of God. Gale posts:
"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
We read in Scoffield’s
notes on the Greek text
that:
Literally, “His own
Father”-Greek- patera
idion. It
is clear that the Jews understood THAT JESUS WAS CLAIMING TO BE
GOD.’” (Scoffield
NKJV, footnote on John 5:18; pg 843;
1989)”
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
Gale posts the comments of A.T
Robertson:
“But
also called God his own
Father (alla kai patera
idion elege ton qeon). "His own" (idion)
IN A SENSE
NOT TRUE OF OTHERS. That is precisely what
Jesus meant by
"My Father." See Romans 8:32 for
o
idioß uioß,
"his own Son." Making himself
equal with God (ison eauton poiwn
twi
qewi).
Isoß
is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and
means equal. In Philippians 2:6
Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ
isa qewi,
"equal to
God" (plural isa,
attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be isoß qewi
because in John 14:28 he
says: "The Father is greater
than I." And yet he says in John 14:7 that
the one who sees him sees in him
the Father. Certainly the Jews
understood Jesus to CLAIMED EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER IN NATURE AND
PRIVILEGE
AND POWER as also in John 10:33; John 19:7.
Besides, if the Jews misunderstood
Jesus on this point, it was open and
easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is
precisely
what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a
powerful apologetic
in defence of his claim
to equality with the Father
(verses John 19-47). (Source)”
But
amazingly Gale refuted from his favorite
Scholar! By
Saying “Jesus would not claim to be
isoß qewi
because in John 14:28 he
says: "The Father is
greater than
I”. If
the father is grater than Jesus I am asking Robertson and Gale how
Jesus is
equal then with the father?.
Robertson fails to give
references where Jesus SAID that he is equal with the Father, instead
of that
he gives references of what Paul said. As I stated from my previous
articles
Paul has nothing to do with Jesus, actually distorted the teachings of
Jesus.
Read about who Paul really was:
http://islamic-answers.com/jesus__words_only
http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Pauline_Corruption_of_Biblical_Analysis.pdf
(a must read)
http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Jude_s_Epistle__More_Evidence_of_Rift_Between_
Jerusalem_and_Paul__.pdf
http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/i/Was_Paul_or_James__Church_the_more_succesfull_Evangelist.pdf
http://islamic-answers.com/jesus_or_paul_____audio_lecture_
http://islamic-answers.com/christianity
The
quotes
that Robertson gave are John 14:7, John 10:33, John 19:7 and these
verses are “indicating”
according to Robertson that Jesus is equal with God. These verses have
been
explained by Muslim apologists here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/john14_8_9.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/john10_30.htm
( in that verse we see that God in the Old Testament calls the Jews
“Gods” a
title that was never attributed to Jesus, indeed hilarious!!!!. And
finally
concerning the verse John 19:7 is nothing interested there. In that
verse Jesus
is just accused by the Rabbis that he was called “Son of
God” a
title that has been given also to others in
the Old Testament and New Testament, for example read Luke3:38, Genesis
6:2,4 ,
Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 2:7, Romans 8:14
But
let us
see some interesting quotes from the Bible that actually rejects the
Deity of
Christ and shows that Jesus is inferior to the Father.
“Not
everyone who
says to Me,
‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom of
heaven, but he who does the will of My
Father in heaven”
(Matthew
“And
the Father
himself, which hath sent me, bore witness of Me.
You have neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his shape” (John
“And
Jesus said
to him, ‘Why do you call me good?
No one
is good but God alone.” (Mark
“And
I do not
seek My own glory; there
is One who seeks and judges.” (John
8:50)
“
Jesus
answered them and said, “my
doctrine are
not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John
“he who does not love me does not
keep My words; and the word which you hear is
not Mine but
the Father’s who sent me” (John
“For
I have not
spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave
Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak”
(John
“Jesus
said to
them, ‘My food is to do the will of
Him
who sent me, and to accomplish His work” (John
“For
I have come
down from heaven, not to do My own will,
but the will of Him who sent me”
(John
“saying, ‘Father, if it
is your will, take this cup away from
Me; nevertheless, not My will, but
Yours, be done”
(Luke
“I can of Myself
do
nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous,
because I do not
seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me”
(John
“I tell you the truth, no servant is greater
than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”
(John
“You
heard me
say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’
If you loved me, you would
be glad that I am going to the Father,
for the Father is greater than I”
(John
“Jesus
said to
them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I
proceeded and came
forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but
he sent me” (John
“To
sit at my
right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for
whom it
has been prepared by my Father”
(Matthew
“So
Jesus
answered them, “My teaching is not
mine,
but his who sent me”
(John
I
believe
that has been made crystal clear to the reader if not that Jesus is
inferior to
God that at least he was sent by the Father, no Christian can deny
that. Jesus
by being the one that the Father sent, automatically puts him in lower
level
because Jesus said ““I tell you the truth, no servant is greater
than his master, nor is a
messenger greater than the one who sent him”.( John
1)
Jesus was sent by Father
2)
Nor is a messenger (wrongly translated as a
“messenger” the word in Greek is “apostolos” which means
the one that is sent:
|
apostoloV |
from apostellw - apostello
649; a delegate; specially, an
ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ
("apostle") (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is
sent. |
)
greater than the one who sent him (according
to john13:16)
Source:
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
3)
Jesus was that “Apostolos”
Apostle because he stated
that he is the sent one from the Father.
4)
Therefore Father is superior to Jesus
Simply the discussion has over, but
I want willingly to continue and expose this amateur Gale and teach him
the
reality of his pagan man made religion of Paul.
Gale support that “Jesus
was essentially saying that because
God was his spiritual (not physical) Father in a special manner he had
the
right to perform certain functions and to act in certain ways that no
other child
of God could. Thus, by making such an assertion Jesus was expressly
claming to
have THE VERY SAME NATURE OF GOD HIMSELF.”
First, Let as see some others
“Childs of God” that perform the same things like
Jesus. All the miracles that
Jesus performed by God permission, is also
performed by others in the
Bible for example:
“Bringing the dead back to life:
"Then he cried out to the LORD , "O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?" Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD , "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, "Look, your son is alive!" (From the NIV Bible, 1 Kings 17:20-23)"
"But
the
child's mother said, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I
will
not leave you." So he got up and followed her. Gehazi
went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy's face, but there was no
sound or
response. So Gehazi
went back to meet Elisha
and told him, "The boy has not
awakened." When Elisha
reached the house, there
was the boy lying dead on his couch.
He went in, shut the
door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got
on the bed
and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As
he
stretched himself out upon him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked
back and forth in the room
and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The
boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.
Elisha summoned Gehazi and said,
"Call the Shunammite."
And he did. When she
came, he said, "Take your son." (From the NIV
Bible, 2 Kings
4:30-36)"
Jesus' dead body never caused
for any dead to come
back to life, but Elisha's
did:
"Elisha died and was
buried. Now Moabite raiders used
to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites
were
burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the
man's
body into Elisha's
tomb. When the body
touched Elisha's bones,
the man came to life and
stood up on his feet. Hazael king
of
Creating life:
Jesus only
restored life,
but never actually created one from scratch. Moses, however,
did create a
live snake from a wooden stick:
"Then
the
LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" "A
staff," he replied. The LORD said, "Throw it on the
ground." Moses threw it on the ground and
it became a
snake, and he ran from it. Then the
LORD said to him,
"Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses
reached
out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his
hand. (From
the NIV Bible, Exodus 4:2-4)"
Curing the blind:
"When
the
servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning,
an army
with horses and chariots had surrounded the city.
"Oh,
my lord, what shall we do?" the servant asked. "Don't be
afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than
those who are with them." And Elisha
prayed, "O LORD , open
his eyes so he may
see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw
the
hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha
prayed to the LORD ,
"Strike these people with
blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha
had asked. Elisha
told them,
"This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will
lead
you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to
Healing
leprosy:
"Elisha sent a messenger to say
to him, "Go, wash yourself
seven times in the
Feeding hundreds with few
loafs of bread:
"A
man
came from Baal Shalishah,
bringing the man of God twenty
loaves of barley bread baked from the first
ripe grain, along with
some heads of new grain. "Give
it to the people
to eat," Elisha
said. "How
can I set this before a hundred men?" his
servant
asked. But Elisha
answered, "Give it to
the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: 'They will eat and
have some
left over.' " Then
he set it before them,
and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the
LORD. (From the NIV Bible, 2
Kings 4:42-44)"
So
as we
clearly see from the above verses, Jesus' Miracles were not
unique.
Therefore, they can never be used to prove that he is the Creator of
the
Universe. Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_miracles.htm
Secondly,
concerning the “Same Nature that God shares with
Jesus” you can Read the
excellent booklet of Shieh
Ahmed Deedat
that refutes this pathetic argument: you can find this booklet here http://www.jamaat.net/gtnw/god.html
The amateur and desperate
missionary continues by claiming that Jesus applies to himself certain
titles
which belong to God exclusively such as “First and Last” This
argument is also been
addressed: http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm
( event though, Gale attempted to respond but he really messed up the
whole
issue by repeating what the N.T says and giving his own
interpretations)
The most important think to know is
that during the time that Jesus spends on the earth, NOT ONCE was
addressed as
the Alpha and Omega, not once addressed as the First and the Last. All
of a
sudden we have a Jesus called Alpha and Omega or First and Last in the
Apocalypse
of John which by the way it was a dream and not the actual so called
words of
Jesus. Below I posted a perfect article concerning the subject of Jesus
being
“Alpha and Omega” and “First and the
Last” that exposes the deceit of some
Christians like Gale, by the way this articles is by Christians!
“
Arche
of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega
(No. 229)
(Edition
1.0 19971217-19971217)
The arguments of
modern
Christianity regarding Christ have much of their origins in Greek
philosophy
and ancient religious practices running contrary to the Bible. Some of
the
biblical texts in English have been mistranslated to conceal the intent
and
structure of the application of the terms because they run counter to
Trinitarian theology. The application of the terms Arche,
Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end, are explained
taking into
account the various texts.
Email: secretary@ccg.org
(Copyright ã 1997 Wade Cox)
This paper may be freely copied and distributed
provided it is copied in
total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name
and address and
the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on
recipients of
distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical
articles and
reviews without breaching copyright.
This paper is available
from the World Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org
Arche
of the
Creation of God as Alpha and Omega
In the various
papers on
God and the Messiah, we have dealt with the first two aspects of the
concepts
embodied in the Godhead, namely those of God the Father, and Jesus
Christ as
the Son of God. The summary obtained from the first section of our
Statement of
Beliefs is that God the Father is properly the one true God and that
Jesus
Christ is the Son of God and that this understanding is the
prerequisite to
eternal life (Jn. 17:3).
God the Father
The
Supreme Deity of the universe is God. He is the Almighty, the Creator
and Sustainer of the
Heavens, the earth and all things therein
(Gen. 1.1; Neh. 9:6;
Ps. 124:8; Isa.
40:26,28; 44:24; Acts 14:15; 17:24,25; Rev. 14:7). He alone is immortal
(1Tim.
Jesus the Son of
God
Jesus
is the first begotten (prototokos)
of the
creation (Col. 1:15) hence the beginning (arche)
of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14). He is the onlyborn
(monogene)
Son of God (Mat.
The comment at
Revelation 3:14 that Christ is the arche
of
the creation of God has
a great significance. We do
not generally understand today why Jesus Christ said to John in
relation to the
Laodicean church, in
effect, "tell the angel of
the Laodicean church
that I am the arche
of the creation of God". Now the reason
that was done was because, in the Laodicean
church,
the argument was to arise both in the church and in the era that Christ
was not
the arche
of the creation of God. This
argument centres around
the eternality of matter and
the immanence of God within all matter.
The word arche means beginning.
The term used in
Revelation 3:14 appears
to relate to a philosophical
discussion that was extant in the
Clement followed
the
Jewish author Philo in interpreting the beginning of Genesis by
resorting to
the Platonic distinction between the sensible and the intelligible
world. The
material and immaterial worlds were basically developed along Platonic
lines.
Thus he was also in agreement with the school-Platonism which had also
regarded
the sensible world as a copy of the intelligible. Salvatore Lilla
(Clement of Alexandria, Ch. III, Oxford University
Press, 1971, p. 192)
notes this and on page 230 says:
In
the doctrine of matter Clement, like Philo and
Middle Platonism, seems to believe in its pre-existence and considers
it as
devoid of any form and quality (cf. Ch. III, p. 226).
The agreement was
only
partial as Clement rejects the view of school-Platonism according to
which
matter is one of the archai
– the plurality of
the beginning of the origins of the world. Clement said that could not
be; but
they said it was, and that matter was original. Clement maintains that
God is
the only true arche
and that all other arche
followed from God. Now Christ was saying that
he was the arche
of the creation of God
because he created by delegation from God. That is the biblical
position, and
why Jesus Christ said it. Clement held later, that God is the only true
arche,
which is true from Revelation 4, where
all things are created by the will of God. But the Platonists were
saying that
matter itself was an arche.
Clement
believed in the existence of matter prior to the origin of the world.
In other
words, matter had an intrinsic existence prior to the actual formation
of the
world. This is similar to the big bang theory where
matter existed in
the beginning. It was initiated and then condensed, formed into
planets. So the
world was created out of the big bang matter. So
the big bang
theory is not new. This is a Platonic doctrine. Clement defended the
charge
that the Stoics, Plato, and Aristotle had regarded matter as one of the
first
principles. He maintained that matter had been described by these
philosophers
as originally devoid of any quality and defined by Plato as me
on coming
into existence in a receptacle (upodoche)
(see
Timaeus
49e-50a, 50b-c), and being devoid of
form (Tim. esp. 50d-e), difficult to know (51b1),
apprehensible by means
of illegitimate (bastard: Lilla)
reasoning, and
hardly believable (52b2). Clement appears to agree with them completely
(Lilla, p. 193). So
there you have the churches starting to
formulate these concepts, moving away from the biblical into the
Platonic. This
is the precursor to Trinitarian reasoning and it is Platonism, pure and
simple.
Philo (the Jewish philosopher writing in the period before Christ) and
Plutarch
on the contrary consider matter as still an ousia
(Lilla, p. 230). Lilla says
that Plutarch together with the other Middle Platonists such as Albinus, Apuleis
and the authors
of the third book of Diogenes Laertius
and of Hippolytus
regarded matter as eternal and as devoid of any
quality and form (ibid., Ch. III, pp. 193,195-6). So they were
effectively
saying it’s up there but there’s no quality,
it’s hanging in the ether.
You have this format (eternality) which possesses the qualities of God.
It has
eternality in its own right. From that thought process came
the Babylonian Animist system. This reasoning was derived from the
Babylonian
and it is rather the formulation of those thought processes. In
regarding
matter as me on Clement agrees with neo-Pythagoreanism,
with Plotinus, and
perhaps also with Ammonius
Saccas (Lilla, Ch. III, pp. 195-196 and
fn. 1, p. 226).
Thus, matter is in
debate as to whether it is formless eternal or formless created. That
is the
essence of the argument. The formless eternality of matter makes it an ousia or hypostasis
of God, hence God is
immanent because matter is a hypostasis of God and therefore God is in
matter.
From this quasi-Gnostic reasoning the Trinity was developed where the
three
hypostases of God were the primary hypostases. Now we are going beyond
that in
the churches.
The question then
arose:
Was the world generated or ungenerated?
In other
words, did it have life of itself or was it created. This pre-empts the
argument
today of evolution and creation. Christ was saying that it was not;
that he was
the arche.
He was the instrument of
God’s creation and that matter (the world) itself was not an arche and God
is not immanent in matter, is not in
rocks, in stone, and glass. To say that God is immanent in matter, in
means of
destruction and killing and that God himself is intrinsically evil, is blasphemy. You then get
to the point where Satan
was held to be evil from the moment of his creation and is in fact just
a hypostasis
of the evil of God.
Similarly, the
angels
are merely hypostases of God, as aspects of His message. One can now
see the
enormity of the blasphemy that is emerging. People are blinded to this
problem.
Chiefly because they are following
doctrines of government
which have nothing to do with the biblical system. That is
why God and
Christ hate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.
It
blinds people to the truth. They are subverted by Platonist doctrines.
The
elect are to be made aware of this doctrinal error.
The message to
the Laodiceans
is made somewhat clearer from this
discussion. The philosophical debate centred around
the contention that matter itself was an ousia
or hypostasis of the one and thus God was immanent
in all matter. God
was thus in wood and stone. This is the fundamental supposition behind
Animism
including that found in
Clement, like
Philo and
the Middle Eastern Platonists – Plutarch and Atticus
– openly favoured generation. Clement, following Philo,
maintains that creation
did not take place in time, since time itself is directly dependent
upon the
sensible world (Lilla,
p. 230). This is fundamentally
wrong (for the reasons outlined previously and in other papers) and was
taken
up by Augustine in City of
The
concept of time only occurs when there is a
relationship between objects. For example a day occurs as the movement
of the
earth on its axis in relation to the sun. A solar year is understood as
the
singular revolution of the earth around the Sun. There are various
years
involved in the rotation of the galaxy, i.e. Solar/Sidereal/Galactic.
The
universe has an expansion factor which relates the movement away from a
primary
point.
The
primary point was determined by Penrose as being
ten to the tenth to the 123rd [power]. Thus from the sheer magnitude of
this
number there must be a point of origin, and no other, for the universe.
All of
this movement is expressed in concepts of time which are related to the
earth
system.
Regardless
of the method of measurement it can only be
that time originates with the relationship of two or more objects to
each
other. Thus time could only begin with the existence of two or more
objects.
God existed before time. The generation of the elohim
was in fact the beginning of time: The beginning of the creation of God
(Rev.
3:14). Colossians
The
Lord God is thus the Alpha, as both cause and
existent, and being the end objective of that action He is also the
Omega:
Revelation
1:8 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says
the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come.
when
he becomes all in
all (Eph.
So the concept of
time
began with the formulation of Jesus Christ. For
when Jesus
Christ was generated (and the elohim
were generated)
time began because there was a relationship between two beings.
God
alone existed in immortality. Regardless of the matter of measurement,
these
two objects originate time. Christ then becomes the creation of God
from his
generation. All creation originates from him and through him. So God is
of the
Alpha as both cause and existence and the end objective of the action.
Thus, He
is also the Omega from Revelation 1:8. Thus, Christ warned the Laodicean church and we are to
take notice of the warnings
to the Laodiceans.
Alpha
and Omega as extended to Jesus Christ
The titles Alpha
and
Omega and the other terms used particularly in the book of Revelation
answer
Greek philosophical concerns as well as state the obvious facts of the
delegation of the position of elohim
to the elect
through Jesus Christ.
Revelation
The importance of
this
addition is in its use to conceal the sequence of what is happening in
the
application of the titles from God to Christ in the sequence of the
prophecy of
Revelation.
Hence the original
text
which reads more or less as the RSV:
Revelation
This text becomes
in the
KJV:
Revelation
1:11 11 Saying,
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send
it unto the seven
churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and
unto Sardis, and unto
Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(KJV)
This insertion in
the
text is done specifically to support Trinitarianism
and negate the intent of the rest of Revelation in this matter.
Revelation 1:8
explains
this reference as applying to God who Revelation 1:6 says is the God
and Father
of Christ.
Revelation
1:8 8 "I
am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and
who
is to come, the Almighty. (RSV)
We see again the
KJV
using the Receptus
deletes the words ho theos or The
God and
uses only kurios
or Lord. The text then
carries the entirely different and fraudulent intent of both texts
referring to
Christ when Alpha and Omega are distinctly vested in the Lord God and
Father of
Christ and not applied to Christ at all from the beginning. This has
much to do
with the theology as it was developed from the Greek philosophical and
Trinitarian concerns we see here. It was a deliberate attempt at
concealing the
true nature of the position of Christ in relation to his God and
elevating him
in the false structure of the Trinity.
Revelation
1:8 8 I
am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(KJV)
Revelation
Revelation
Revelation
2:8 8 "And
to the angel of the church in
The terms protos and eschatos
carry the concepts contained in Revelation
This function is
increased. At the return of Messiah and in the end process with the
advent of
the City of
In Revelation
22:13-16
we see the two titles become merged in Messiah as he comes as the
bright and
morning star.
Revelation
22:13-16 13 I
am
the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the
end."
14
Blessed are those who wash their robes,
that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may
enter the
city by the gates. 15
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and
fornicators
and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices
falsehood. 16
"I
Jesus have sent my angel
to you with this testimony
for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright
morning
star." (RSV)
He is given these
titles
as delegated power from God. As the protos
of
the creation he becomes one with the Alpha. As the eschatos
of the creation he becomes one with the Omega as
God becomes all in all
(Eph. 4:6).
Revelation 21:6
shows
the point when this event happens. Christ becomes
the Alpha and the
Omega and the arche
and the telos.
He is stated as arche
or the beginning of the creation of God from Revelation 3:14. Here we
have arche
as beginning and telos
as end. The word occurred is the collective neuter
plural gegonan
(cf. Rev. 16 and 17 and
Revelation
21:6 6 And
he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and
the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from
the
fountain of the water of life without payment. (RSV)
It has occurred is translated as
it
is done to conceal the concept that this process of God
becoming all in all
commences with Christ who was not that way in the beginning.
We are thus
dealing with
a progressive concept of the activities of Messiah and the elect.
"Behold
I make all things new".
God is becoming
all in
all. Thus God is the Omega or end result of His own creation. The
Trinitarian
translators of the KJV deliberately hide this fact and concept from its
readers.
Christ
as Arche within Trinitarianism
The arguments
referred
to above are held to be a feature of the message to the Laodicean
church. Thus the argument must be a central source of error in that
church – or
era by extension. The prophesies
say what the error
is. It is the central error of the Laodicean
church
and the reason that God spews the Laodicean
church
out of His mouth.
Christ is saying
that he
was the arche
of the creation of God. Clement
had to have God as the only true arche
to
prevent the concept of Christ being the beginning of an activity of
God. That
is what it is all about. The Trinitarians do not want Christ in that
position
because Christ then becomes an activity of God rather than God Himself
as a Binitarian
structure.
Unless you have
the Binitarian
structure you can’t build the Trinity – and the
seeds of the Trinity are inherent in the Binitarian
structure. Hence, Binitarianism
contains the seeds of
its own destruction. Hand in hand with this error is the Soul doctrine.
Clement
was, however, a theologian who was, to all intents and purposes, a
Gnostic. He
believed in the Soul doctrine and that the souls ascended through seven
levels
and are free from material passions and possess gnosis (Lilla,
p. 182). Thus the elect were held to go through this process of
enlightenment.
Any church, on becoming Trinitarian, will be committed to embracing the
Soul
doctrine. Ultimately there has to be a world soul system developed and
then
individuals become part of that world soul. The ascent of the seven
levels that
Clement is talking about is pure Shamanism. It emanated from the
Babylonian
system and went out into the Steppes of Russia with the dispersion
after the
flood. It formed the Shamanic systems where the adherent goes from one
level to
the next through seven levels generally. There can be as many as nine
and
thirteen. There is a spirit or demon controlling (or God as they call
them)
each of the seven levels until you ascend to the highest level.
That’s what
Clement was proposing and that’s what the Platonic mystical
ascents are all
about. That was what the Cappadocian
theologians were
proposing. They were advocating mystical ascent of the seven levels.
The deity
they got to was not God. They were demonists. The same system applies
in
Buddhism today. At a Buddhist preordination ceremony there is a cone
with
levels in it, with an egg on one level; all of it symbolic of evoking
the
spirits down through the levels to go into the adherent. Anyone in
Buddhism is
necessarily in the Shamanic system. They invoke the spirits to go into
them and
take them over. The whole structure of ascent of the soul is geared
around
demonism and an invocation of spirits. It is a different spirit to the
Holy
Spirit. That is why it is important to understand that before we study
the Holy
Spirit. The material difference between Christian, Platonist and
Gnostic
creation theory involving arches is that the
Gnostics believed that the archontes
were generally evil powers under the jurisdiction
of Jaldabaoth the
inferior demiurge of the material
world (see Apochryphon
of John 41:12-14
and codex II Krause-Labib,
II. 4-5, p. 139; Lilla,
p. 183 and fn. 5). The functional difference is in
the first two centuries. The identification as the Logos was done as
the second
hypostasis of God. Clement identifies the logos as
the second hypostasis
of God, not the first with the divine wisdom, the first of the beings
created
by God and His adviser (Lilla,
p. 208). The adviser
to God was wisdom from Proverbs 8:22. That comes from a misapprehension
of the
role of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the first power of God
extant with
God in the creation. The Holy Spirit did not come after Christ. It
logically
emanated from God, as His power. It is the means by which Christ and all of the Host are tied to God.
This argument is so
important, so study it to understand the arguments of these people.
The debate thus
centred around a
philosophy which sought to wrest Scripture or
misapply that Scripture so that all elements of the creation were in
fact hypostases
or ousia
of God. Hypostases and ousia
were not the same disciplinary terms. Hypostases
is a Stoic term; ousia
is a Platonic term. Both mean essentially the same thing. The
Trinitarians use
hypostases as aspects of the one ousia.
So they use the two terms to mean God as containing the three
hypostases.
It is important to understand what these people are saying when they
use the
terms (see the paper The Use of the Term Hypostasis
(No. 230) for a
fuller explanation of these terms). The angels are thus held to be
hypostases
of God as the demons are also. Thus Satan could be evil from the moment
of his
creation as has been advanced recently by some academics in the
Churches of
God. We have seen already how this is not true. The Bible is quite
clear that
Satan was perfect from the moment of his creation (Ezek. 28:15).
The concept is
that: As
God is immanent and all entities are merely hypostases of God, Satan is
thus an hypostases who
has no reality other than as an expression
of the mind of God. Similarly, the angels also merely reflect God and
have no
real existence other than as hypostases. This deception extends to
material
immanence through the neo-Platonist philosophical developments. It
extends
beyond fundamental Trinitarianism
into Process
Theology developed from neo-Platonism. It is the basis of the system of
worship
of the last days.
This system of
Process
Theology developed by neo-Platonists from Trinitarianism
will be the system which will take over Buddhism and all these other
religions
and combine it into the system of the last days. It is applicable to Shintoism and Hindu Liberation
Theology. It is a
generalised system and it is a means of destruction of the Catholic
Church, not
of its preservation. It is the means by which the Beast turns on the
Whore and
destroys it. We are, in fact, watching the religion of the last days
being
instituted. It also has its beginning in the Churches of God. It is
from this
system that the Man of Sin will ascend. This system would deceive even
the very
elect if that were possible.
This concept is
the
absolute deception and has entered the
The idea that the
divine
wisdom is the adviser of God and the first of the beings created by God
is,
according to Lilla,
characteristic of the
Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy prior to Philo. So the Jews at
The Spirit was
logically
the first emanation of God, because the generation of Christ and the
other elohim made it
logically necessary for there to be in place
a mechanism for their integration with God in order that there be
absolute
Monotheism as a unified whole. God is the centre of all beings. All
beings in
the Host are tied to Him by the Holy Spirit. It is through the Spirit
that the
nature of God is transmitted to all beings, both Christ and the rest of
the
elect, and ultimately all humans. That’s the mechanism and
unless you
understand that process you can’t really understand what is
happening with the
Holy Spirit. It occurs because the law of God emanates from the abiding
goodness
of the nature of God. So, it can’t be Binitarian
because there is an ultimate centrality to goodness, and that goodness
is God.
Christ said that only God is good; why call
me
good, only God is good because of the
logic of the centrality of
ultimate goodness. You can’t have a ditheist system.
Reasoning, logic, tells us
that we cannot. The law of God proceeds from the nature of God that
stands
forever, as God Himself is unchangeable, being essentially good as the
centre
of ultimate goodness.”
Source: http://www.logon.org/english/s/p229.html
Also check: http://www.answering-christianity.com/alpha_omega.htm
As you have already understand the
arguments of Gale is just a vain repetition that already have been
refuted. For
example check below what the parrot Gale repeats:
Other
exclusive Divine prerogatives which Jesus claims to have include
the following:
"... And they
came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men... And Jesus
seeing
their faith said to the paralytic, `My son, your sins are
forgiven.' But
there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their
hearts,
`Why does this man speak that way? HE IS BLASPHEMING; WHO CAN
FORGIVE SINS
BUT GOD ALONE?' And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit
that they were
reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, `Why are you
reasoning
about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the
paralytic,
"Your sins are forgiven"; or to say, "Arise take up your pallet
and walk"? But in order that you may know that THE SON OF MAN
HAS
AUTHORITY ON EARTH TO FORGIVE SINS'- He said to the
paralytic- `I say to
you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.' And he rose and
immediately took
up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all
amazed
and were glorifying God, saying, `We have never seen anything
like this.'"
Mark 2:3, 5-
As
you see, Gale is repeating his self. Just
check his firs response to me to identify his repetition. Anyway the
answer
from my side is the same. Jesus has authority and power by
the Father he does not owns it, therefore he cannot be a God.
Now
they have known that all things whatever you
have given me are of you.
John 17:7
The
phrase “all things” refer to miracles,
power to forgive sins, etc
1.
These words spoke Jesus, and lifted up his
eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son,
that your
Son also may glorify you:
2.
As
you have given him power over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life
to as many as you have given him. John 17:1-2
The
Father gave power to Jesus
All power is given unto me
in
heaven and in earth. ( Matthew 28:18)
I can
of my own self do nothing:
as
I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own
will, but
the will of the Father which has sent me. John 5:30
Again
and again it is crystal clear that Jesus
can do nothing without the Father, therefore Jesus cannot be like the
Father,
which means that cannot be God.
Gale
show us the a verse from the antichrist
Paul which is Hebrews 1:8-9, total irrelevant, Paul has nothing to do
with
Jesus, and this is not the perspective of Jesus. Check above the
statements of
Jesus where he denies deity. But it is really interesting to see in
that verse
the stupidity of Paul:
8.
But to the Son he said, Your
throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the
scepter
of your kingdom.
9.
You have loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil
of
gladness above your fellows. Hebrews 1:8-9
Here
we can identify pure ancient Greek
Polytheism! A God that has a God.
Therefore
2 Gods. But surprisingly the unholy Bible clearly accepts
the idea that
a man can be called god. For example we read:
I
have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High. Psalms
82:6
Now
the Christians apologist support that this
verse is a metaphorical one, personally I don’t care if it is
literally or
metaphorical because simple we have the word “GODS”
which describes humans. So
even Jesus ever declared God (which nowhere occurs by the lips of
Jesus) it
does not mean NOTHING according to Psalms 82:6
But
it getting worst
for Gale. Concering the
quote Hebrews 1:9 he says:
“As
for the part dealing with anointing, "to
anoint" means to appoint
someone and set him aside for the service of God”
It
seems Gale cannot understand or comprehend
what he writes because from the above statement he clearly shows that
Jesus was
anointed by God, therefore according to his above statement Jesus is
the
SERVANT of God. This amateur needs to go back to School in order to
learn how
to construct an argument.
Moreover,
Gale admits in a diplomatic way a
contradiction that occurs in his unholy book:
He
quotes: “‘But,’ he said, ‘you
cannot see my
face, for man shall not see me and live.’” Exodus
33:20
“Yet both the Old and New
Testaments refer to God appearing to people on more than one
occasion:”
Then
Gale
quotes the verses Genesis 32:24-30, Isaiah
6:1-5, Ezekiel 1:26-28,
2:1-5, to show us that God
appeared to the people. Indeed sickness of the high order! This
missionary
exposes his own unholy book as a contradictory one. He tries also to
support
that the God that did not appeared was the Father but the One that
appeared was
the Son God, I ask him directly this clown, “ from were have
you drawn this
conclusion Gale? I challenge you first of all to show me where the
Jesus is
described as God the Son. Then he quotes:
"No
one has ever seen God. It is GOD THE ONLY SON, who
is close to the
Father's heart, who has
made him known." John
Quennel
Gale use a wrong
translation concerning John 1:18. Let us check
some other translations of the Bible to see that there is no mention of
the phrase
“God the only Son”:
[18]
No man
hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
John
18
No one has seen God at any time;
the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
John
The
Greek
text says: