Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Also, Our Trinity Audio Debate! (click here)

Listen to brother Sami Zaatari destroy Sam Shamoun's arguments!

  

See Also:

The "Son of God" Title in the 1 John 2:22

Jesus is Yahweh the Son?  See how Christians got this very wrong in the NT, using Jesus' words himself!
Also, is Islam the anti-Christ system according to 1 John 2:22?

From: www.answering-christianity.com/convert_christians.htm:

  

Father and Son Definitions:

Definition of Key Terms (a discussion between me and a Christian):

1-  What does "The Father" really mean in the Bible?  How is it defined in Islam? (see point #5 below)  How does the Bible really define it?

2-  What does "Son of GOD" really mean in the Bible? 

3-  Jesus had to at least match Melchizedek in Miracles and  Power.  See this text-debate between me and a Christian brother.

4-  Does the Bible say that Yahweh created Jesus Yes it does

  • John 1:1
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God was with authority
    (same Greek word for satan's rule [2] [3])."
      

  • Detailed discussion about Jesus' Will with ample verses.
      

  • In Islam, there are three "Worlds" or Realms:

  • (a)-  GOD Almighty, who is not seen by anyone or anything, nor is like unto anyone or anything.

    (b)-  The World of Command, which is the invisible world of the Beings that were made by the Word and the Spirit.

    (c)-  The World of Creation, the flush and blood, dust and water physical world and Universes (plural).

    Also visit: Is the Noble Quran a Creator or Creation?

      
      
    "Father" and "Son" in Islam and the Bible:

    5-  Is Islam the anti-Christ system according to 1john 2:22 No it isn't.  Here are some Bible facts regarding "FATHER" and "SON":

    (a)-  Allah Almighty is the Believers' only Guardian (المولى):

  • See Noble Verses 8:40, 22:13, 22:78.  In Arabic we say ولي الأمر , which means "The Legal Guardian".  المولى is derived from the root word ولي  .ولي also means a chosen friend to Allah Almighty, as in the following point.   

  • (b)-  FRIENDS = SONS in the Bible and Quran (ولي , وليهما and خليلا):

    We further read the following in the Bible:

    Isaiah 41:8
    "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,

    Chronicles 20:7
    Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?

    James 2:23
    And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.

    So being GOD Almighty's "SON" in the Bible is equal to being GOD Almighty's "FRIEND".  Now compare this to the following from the Holy Quran:

    [002:257] Allah is the friend (ولي) and patron of those who believe. He brings them out of the depths of darkness into light. While those who do not believe, have the forces of evil as their friends; they lead them out of light, into the very depths of darkness. Such ones shall be the inmates of the fire. They will stay there forever.

    [003:122] (And remember) when the two groups among you lost heart (and almost fell out), even though Allah was their Friend and Protector (وليهما)? In Allah (alone), should the believers place their trust!

    [004:125] Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend (خليلا).

    So the Bible's "FATHER" & "SON" for GOD Almighty and the Believers is clearly metaphoric, and it only means that GOD Almighty:

    1-  Is the Protector.
    2-  Is the Friend.
    3-  Is the Guardian.

    Please visit the following link to further see what Words the Glorious Quran uses for these words and definitions:

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1368.msg5203.html#msg5203

      
    (c)-  BEGET = CHOSE:

    Regarding the following verse, and many others like it:

    King James Bible Psalm 2:7
    I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Let us look at Noble Verses 27:59, 3:33, 3:42, 7:144, 22:75, 35:32, 38:47, 39:4 from the Glorious Quran:

    [027:059] Say: Praise be to God, and Peace on his servants whom He has chosen اصطفى (for his Message). (Who) is better?- God or the false gods they associate (with Him)?

    ‏27:59 قل الحمد لله وسلام على عباده الذين اصطفى ءالله خير اما يشركون

    [003:033] God did choose اصطفى Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,-

    ‏3:33 ان الله اصطفى ادم ونوحا وال ابراهيم وال عمران على العالمين

    [003:042] Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God hath chosen thee اصطفاك and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.

    ‏3:42 واذ قالت الملائكة يامريم ان الله اصطفاك وطهرك واصطفاك على نساء العالمين

    [007:144] (God) said: "O Moses! I have chosen thee اصطفيتك above (other) men, by the mission I (have given thee) and the words I (have spoken to thee): take then the (revelation) which I give thee, and be of those who give thanks."

    ‏7:144 قال ياموسى اني اصطفيتك على الناس برسالاتي وبكلامي فخذ ما اتيتك وكن من الشاكرين

    [022:075] God chooses يصطفي messengers from angels and from men for God is He Who hears and sees (all things).

    ‏22:75 الله يصطفي من الملائكة رسلا ومن الناس ان الله سميع بصير

    [035:032] Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen اصطفينا: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by God's leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest Grace.

    ‏35:32 ثم اورثنا الكتاب الذين اصطفينا من عبادنا فمنهم ظالم لنفسه ومنهم مقتصد ومنهم سابق بالخيرات باذن الله ذلك هو الفضل الكبير

    [038:047] They were, in Our sight, truly, of the company of the Elect المصطفين and the Good.

    ‏38:47 وانهم عندنا لمن المصطفين الاخيار

    [039:004] Had God wished to take to Himself an (actual) son, He could have chosen لاصطفى whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistible.

    ‏39:4 لو اراد الله ان يتخذ ولدا لاصطفى مما يخلق مايشاء سبحانه هو الله الواحد القهار

    Furthermore, when Jesus was asked about when the Hour will come, he replied by saying that only GOD Almighty Knows, and that no one knows, and that Jesus himself also didn't know.  Please visit:

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/questions.htm
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac7.htm#links

    Jesus spelled it out clearly that he knew NOT.  And as to calling GOD Almighty "Father", and that Islam denies that GOD Almighty is an ACTUAL FATHER to anyone, in Islam GOD Almighty is called:

    1-  Rab - Lord, Father (you are the Rab of your home for being the husband and the father).

    2-  Wali - Guardian.

    In the old Aramaic and Hebrew, GOD Almighty was called what-is-equivalent-to-Islam our Rab and Wali.  But that doesn't make GOD Almighty our actual Father.  This is exactly as Judaism metaphors such as idolatry is equivalent to spiritual adultery.  No Jew is actually married to GOD Almighty to actually commit a personal marriage-adultery against GOD Almighty!  Yet, the Jews use metaphors like these.  Islam came to straighten all of this out and to set the record straight that GOD Almighty has no son and no daughter.  Otherwise, why would GOD Almighty torture us to Hell if we were His perfect sons and daughters??  No imperfect being could be an actual son of GOD Almighty (and no being is the son or daughter of GOD Almighty, period!):

    [005:018] (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

    Again, please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1368.msg5203.html#msg5203.
      

    6-  Did you know that Elohim is Allah [1] [2].  The "im" in Hebrew is a majestic plural for GOD Almighty.  The root Word is "Eloh".  And the more original Jews such as Yemenites and others say Alohim or Alah-im.  And when you yourself pronounce it, you do naturally pronounce it with a double "l": Allah.  Jews do call Him: Allah-im.  Aramaic-speaking people also call GOD Almighty Allah.  See the following videos for Biblical references and proofs.  Also, pre-Islamic Biblical archeological findings have GOD Almighty as "Allah".  So the Original Holy Name for GOD Almighty is not Eloh.  It is Allah!  Eloh is a Hebrew dialect, which not all Hebrew speakers use anyway.  Allah had always been the Original and Universal GOD Almighty even before birth of Judaism, and the existence Hebrew.  And Hebrew is a developed language from Phoenician.  See the following links:

               
           (Click to play videos)

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew

      

      

      

    Two tooges, Sam Shamoun VS Craig Winn, debating each others on what trinity really means!

    The following debate that took place between the foul-mouthed (see ample documentations in AUDIO and TEXT) Sam Shamoun and Craig Winn, two polytheist trinitarian pagans and stooges, started because Shamoun wanted to warn Winn about my detailed rebuttals to his book of lies where I even listed in details where Craig Winn fabricated quotes on his own against Islam!  Not realizing what he was about to get himself into, Shamoun started talking rubbish about me and my site, and then he found himself getting into a heated debate with Winn over what trinity really means.

    Now without being prejudice or showing any favoritism to Islam, but both clowns have thoroughly demonstrated how their religion is truly messed up and confused.  There is nothing but spin after spin and confusion after confusion in this evil religion of theirs called "Christianity".  As you will clearly see from their debate below, the stupidity of this religion is just way too ludicrous!  GOD Almighty is certainly not an author of spins, lies and confusions as He clearly stated in the Noble Quran:

    "Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?  Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.   (The Noble Quran, 4:82)"

    Having said all of that, let us now look at the two stooges debate and enjoy a good laugh at it.

    Note:  This debate used to exist on Craig Winn's web site at: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/response_sam0604.html.  Winn removed it because it obviously was too embarrassing for him and Shamoun.  Fortunately however, it was saved at "Web Archives."  Please be advised that "Web Archives" have modified the original links for their own storage and maintenance purposes.

    Also, please be advised that Craig Winn's entire site had been thoroughly refuted and exposed at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_of_doom_book_rebuttal.htm.

     

    The Shamoun-Winn Trinity Debate:

    (I have cut the too-lengthy and irrelevant "greeting and welcoming" conversation that took place between them)
     

    Hello Craig,
     
    My name is Sam Shamoun.....

    Just wanted to say that your book is great and also wanted to inform
    you that one Muslim he is currently trying to "respond" to you:
     
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_of_doom_book_rebuttal.htm

    .................
     
     
    Sam,
     
    What a great pleasure it is to hear.....

    .................

    My precious colleague,
     
    It was great hearing from you. I do agree that you have done more than enough to expose Osama's lack of ability to provide a coherent response. So there really isn't much left for you to do.
     
    Nadir is a sick demented demon and needs to be arrested. Pray that the
    Lord deals with him.
     
    Both men seem the same to me—equally deceptive and twisted. One is just a little more polished than the other. The thing that bothers me about them is that Muslims consider their foolish rants credible. Their deceptions deceive many—maintaining them in Islamic bondage. And that indeed is a demented and demonic crime worthy or punishment.

    A quick response to the two liars:

    In regards to Craig's "responses" to me, as of today 01/10/2007, Craig Winn has removed all of his responses to me from his site!  He apparently doesn't want his readers to know anything about my site and his section that thoroughly refutes him and exposes his deliberate fabrication of quotes and lies which I have documented in great details.  You can visit his link which is located in his rebuttal section above and investigate his site for yourself!

    All Praise and Glory and due to Allah Almighty alone!


    I do believe that God's covenant name is important, especially in order
    to contrast him with that demon named Allah.
     
    And that is how I came to know and revere Yahweh’s name. There is a zero probability that Allah, the name of the dark spirit to whom Muhammad attributes his sadistic Qur’an revelations, was the same Spirit who inspired the Bible. Allah’s name isn’t mentioned once and Yahweh gave us His name 6868 times in His Scriptures. Then the more I read, the more I came to understand just how important knowing and using Yahweh’s name really is. 

    A quick response to the two liars:

    "Allah" (GOD) in Arabic is the "Elaw" (GOD) in Aramaic, and the latter had been used literally 1000s of times throughout the Bible's Old and New Testaments!  "Yahweh" is a Hebrew word that means "the LORD" or "the Eternal."  One of Allah Almighty's Divine Attributes in Islam is "the Eternal", which translates as "Al-Samad" in Arabic.

    It is truly most ironic to these liars that while "Elaw" or "Allah" was used in the OT and NT, "Yahweh" was only used in the OT and never even once in the NT!  Jesus and his disciples never addressed GOD Almighty as "Yahweh" in the NT!  They addressed Him as either "Abb" (the Father, could also mean Lord or Leader or one in charge as "Abb of house", father of the house, i.e., the husband and the father of the wife and children who is in charge of the house) or "Elaw" (God).

    To the reader, please visit: The original name for GOD Almighty in Aramaic and Hebrew was indeed "Allah" to see how these two clowns' lie and blasphemy is thoroughly destroyed with archeological evidence of early Arab Jews and Christians, centuries before Islam, using "Allah" as GOD Almighty's Holy Name, and ample textual evidence from the Bible's Aramaic and Hebrew.

    You be the judge!

     
    I was curious to know if you affirm the eternal deity and perfect
    humanity of Yashua, and whether you believed that the Holy Spirit is a divine Personality. In other words, do you believe and affirm that Yahweh Elohim eternally subsists in three distinct, yet inseparable Persons (for a lack of a better term)?
     
    The Scriptures say that Yahweh, Yahshua, and the Holy Spirit are all Yahweh. They are one, not distinct personalities. It’s like liquid water, water vapor, and ice all being different manifestations of exactly the same thing. The best presentation is John 14—a chapter I present in an amplified fashion in Prophet of Doom and in Future History. Yahshua was not created. He is not a second generation God. Yahshua is Yahweh in the form or a man. I cover this in the Harpazo chapter of Future History. It’s available free online on the Resources pages of Prophet of Doom.
     
    Men have had the tendency to attribute many things to the “God” whose name they do not know which are not true. I cover many of these in the Ekklesia chapter of Future History, another chapter I hope you read. And if you disagree with my conclusions once you have read these amplified Scripture presentations, feel free to challenge me on it. While Yahweh’s Scripture is true—I’m fully capable of error.  

     
    Please, I hope you don't mind me asking. I just needed to know where
    you stand since I am sure  you would agree with me that affirming essential biblical truths are of outmost importance in order for true unity to exist.
     
    Take care.
    Sam
     
    Sam, I don’t mind you asking because I agree with you. Affirming what Yahweh has to say in His Scripture is essential. I hope that you read the Scriptural amplifications that are available in the first five chapters of Future History. In them you will discover Yahweh’s position on this question, rather than my own. But that’s just fine as mine doesn’t matter—His does.
     
    In Yahweh’s name,
    Craig



    Hey Craig,
     
    I don't have too much time to read the entire chapter since I am currently trying to finish several new articles on exposing Islam. If you could explain to me what you meant that you do not believe they are three Persons, since your water analogy seems to comport with Trinitarianism. In other words, are you saying that Yahshua is not somehow distinct from the Father or the Spirit? I do agree with you that they are all the one true, eternal Yahweh Elohim.
     
    I understand and agree with your priorities, Sam. But unfortunately, quick answers and sound bytes do more harm than good. It’s why the 1500 pages long. And what I believe is unimportant—it’s what Yahweh’s Scriptures say that counts.
     
    As you know, Sam, the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. Yahweh never says he’s three. Most of the OT prophecies regarding Messiah are in Yahweh’s voice. And Yahshua’s words in John 14 are very clear: Yahshua is Yahweh in the form of a man and the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s Spirit.
     
    Here are some excerpts from the Harpazo chapter:
     
    One of the most powerful prophecies in the Bible is found in Psalm 22. Yahweh predicted His own crucifixion and resurrection 500 years before the torment was invented, and 1000 years before His body and Soul rose from the dead. What you are going to read may be the most important prediction ever made. It has profound implications on where we will spend our eternity and how we will get there.

    It begins with Christ’s last words on the cross and explains why he was hanging there. “My God, my God, why have you azab (relinquished, left or forsaken) me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; and by night, but I have no rest. Yet You are Holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. In You our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you did deliver them. To You they cried out, and were delivered; In You they trusted, and were not disappointed.” (Psalm 22:1-5)

    I do not understand the mechanics of this miracle. But fortunately, I do not need to know how it happened to appreciate why it happened—or to benefit from it.

    Yahshua is Yahweh in the form of a man. His name, I Am, defines Him. He is eternal. The immortal cannot die, thus God could not die on the cross—only the flesh His Spirit occupied and His human Soul could endure that indignity.

    God can, however, feel pain. Psalm 22 will go on to detail the most torturous elements of His suffering. It was at the end of a long day. He had been tried, spit upon, beaten, and whipped by His own creation. His Spirit and the temporary body it occupied had suffered, sacrificed, and bled beyond our comprehension. We nailed God to a cross. But when His body neared death, Yahweh’s Spirit departed. That is what this question affirms: “My God why have you forsaken me?” To forsake is to abandon, to separate—to damn in a Biblical sense. The Hebrew word is azab; it means “to relinquish,” to “leave destitute.”

    The abandonment is explained in the next verse. “Why are You so rachoq (far removed or remote) from yasha (helping me, or keeping me safe) from the moaning roars?

    The middle portion of the passage affirms that this question will be posed in agony. In Hebrew, it says that He will call out to God by name, but that He will not respond. The following verse confirms the pain He will endure that day and the torment that the Soul which resided in the broken body would bear in the darkness of the long night that would follow. The Hebrew word translated night, layil, actually defines hell—“the adversity of being away from light.” There would be no rest as Yahshua’s Soul, not Yahweh’s Spirit, descended into the darkness of hell—the one place God Himself could not go. Hell, the home of the Adversary, is Lightless. Yahshua’s Soul would suffer there, as His body had suffered on the cross—all for our benefit.

    But this was to be good news, not bad as the rest of the passage so boldly proclaims. Yahweh, the Holy or Sacred One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would through this act of ultimate sacrifice deliver those who had and would come to trust Him. By the deed predicted in this Psalm, all those who had, and those who would cry out to Yahweh, would be delivered from damnation and into His company. The Hebrew word palat means to “escape” or to be “carried safely away.” Remember those words, as they will become synonymous with the coming rapture. We are told that those who trust Him will not be disappointed. This is the Gospel being manifest. It is the ultimate Good News.

    The closer one looks, the more magnificent God’s Scripture becomes. So you can more fully appreciate the magnitude of Yahweh’s prophecy, I have amplified the Psalm by providing the range of meanings actually conveyed by the Hebrew words Yahweh inspired and David inscribed. They present the torment of flagellation and crucifixion. “But I Am a tola (crimson grub—i.e., bloodied pulp), and not iysh (extant, present as a person), [I Am] cherpah (rebuked and reproached) by adam (mankind), and bazah (despised, scorned, and disdained) by the am (people, specifically the tribe of Israel). All who see me laag (deride, speak unintelligibly about, and mock) me; They patar saphah (emit language—figuratively shoot off their mouth), they shake their heads, saying, ‘He galal (trusted or committed) himself to el (the God) Yahweh to palat (escape, carry safely away or deliver) him. Let Him natsal (snatch away, rescue) him, because He chaphets (is pleased with, delights in) him.” (Psalm 22:5-8)

    Yahweh used three different words for man in one sentence and it wasn’t by chance. After accurately describing the condition and appearance of His wiped and crucified body, He said that He was no longer present as a person. He said that he was being accused by adam—symbolic of both the first man’s sin and of taking on the sin of all mankind. That was brilliant beyond words. Then, a millennia before it actually happened, Yahweh told us that He would be rejected by His chosen people, the Jews. These carefully crafted and chosen words reveal the nature, character, and intellect of God.

    Roman crucifixions were executed along popular roadways so that the victim’s humiliation and the deterrent effect his pain would have on the eyewitnesses would be magnified. That is why Yahshua says that people were gawking at Him, shaking their heads, and saying senseless things—mouths running faster than their brains.

    The final lines of this passage are particularly revealing. Written around 967 B.C., they predicted that in one thousand years, 33 A.D., a man who would trust a God named Yahweh would preach that He would deliver mankind to Yahweh and carry men away from death, yet that He would not rescue Himself. That only happened once in all of human history.

     The Davidian Psalm ultimately ends by telling us that the individual hanging on this cross would be God, but so we wouldn’t miss the fact that this manifestation of Yahweh would be Yahshua, the Messiah—God in the flesh—it explains: “Yet You [God] are He who giyach (caused me to come forth) out of the beten (womb as in body); You caused me to trust when I was upon my mother’s breast. I was shalak (thrown down) from the rechem (womb as in matrix).” (Psalm 22:9-10) Yahshua is saying that Yahweh sent Him via a woman’s womb from the matrix—an eternal four dimensional construct we call heaven. This “man” who was beaten to a pulp by Roman whips was God in the flesh.

    With foreboding words, the future sacrificial Soul pleads again, asking God not to remove Himself from Him. He tells us that He is headed to a rendezvous with Satan, the Adversary, where He will be afflicted. He knows that nothing exists that can protect him from this tribulation. “Do not rachaq (recede, remove or distance) Yourself from me, for tsarah (the Adversary’s affliction, anguish, and tribulation) is qarob (near or approaching); for ayin (nothing exists) that can azar (protect or aid) me. Many par (wild, strong, and powerful animals) surrounded me and they have kathar kathar (besieged and crowned) me (in hostile fashion causing suffering). They patsah (tear apart, separate into parts with force and violence) me with their peh (blows) as they taraph (pluck off or pull away pieces) with shag (rumbling and roaring moans) of ariy (piercing violence).  (Psalm 22:11-13) The passage reveals that the Spirit from heaven will be besieged by strong men and crowned in hostile fashion. Long before the Romans developed their metal tipped flagellum scourging whips that pulled hunks of flesh from men’s bodies, a prophet described the effect they would have on God’s. And five centuries before crucifixion with ropes was invented by the Assyrians or perfected with nails by the Romans, we have a preview of their piercing violence. If nothing else, we are discovering that Biblical prophecy is very precise.

    Crucifixion causes the fluids of the victim’s body to drain into their lungs. While dying of thirst, they drown. While bones are not broken, both shoulders are dislocated. Oxygen depletion due to the inability of the person being crucified to stretch their diaphragm, causes a carbon dioxide toxin to build up in the bloodstream such that all strength melts away, starting with the heart muscles. We know this today, but not 3,000 years ago, which is when these words were inscribed on a scroll. “I Am poured out like water and whole bones are parad (separated or out of joint). My heart is like wax; it is masas (melted away, wasted, or faint) in my tavak (core or bisection) of my meeh (intestines or abdomen—i.e., my diaphragm isn’t working). My koach (vigor or strength) is yabesh (withered or failed) like cheres (sun-baked dust or clay). My tongue cleaves to my mouth, and you have brought me to the aphar (dust or the earth). (Psalm 22:14-15) That is precisely how crucifixion kills.

    It’s painfully clear that the Psalm was predicting public flagellation followed by crucifixion, Roman style. “For the keleb (yelpers/attackers) have sabab (surrounded) me. The assemblage of raa (spoiled and wicked evil doers) have naqaph (surrounded and struck me violently). They pierced my hands and my feet. I can saphar (record/count) all my bones [i.e., nothing is broken]. They stare at me.  (Psalm 22:14-15) They struck blows, pounding nails into hands and feet, piercing them. His shoulders were ripped from their sockets. And we, spoiled and wicked men that we are, taunted God.

    In the Gospels we are told that the Romans who crucified Christ, cast lots for the garments they had stripped from him. It shouldn’t have been a surprise. Psalm 22:18 predicted it: “They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” 

    With Christ’s last words on the cross, Yahweh’s Spirit departed, leaving Yahshua’s Soul to bear the sins of all mankind. He pleads: “Do not remove Yourself from me Yahweh. Your power is my protection, eager to help me. Natsal (Snatch away) my Soul from the chereb (cutting instrument, sword, or destructive effect), my yachiyd (beloved, lonely, life, or only son) from the yad (hand or power) of the keleb (yelping attackers). Yasha (Keep me safe) from the piercing violence, for You have anah (responded) to me from the qeren (peak of the mountain or power) and raam (lifted me up). (Psalm 22:19-21) There are several ways to interpret these passages, all of which would be correct and prophetic. Yahshua’s side was pierced by a spear and yet the whole affair, as well as what lay ahead, was destructive. He was loved, lonely, and the only Son of God all at the same time. He was hung on Yahweh’s mountain, Mount Mariah—the symbol of His power. And indeed, He was lifted up.

    This would be no ordinary Soul being flayed alive, pierced, and crucified. We are told that those who revere Yahweh will praise Him—something that would violate the Ten Commandments if the willing sacrifice were not God Himself. “Those who yare (revere) Yahweh praise Him. All descendants of Jacob glorify Him. Stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Yisrael (Israel—He will rule as God). For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the aniy (humble, lowly, needy, poor). Neither has He hid His paniym (face or countenance) from him. When he shava (cried out to be free) to Him, He heard.” (Psalm 22:23-25) This verse proclaims that the crucifixion victim has parity with Yahweh—making Him God. The second part of the passage says that Yahweh chose the cross and that Yahshua went there willingly because He heard our cries. He hung there for you and me.

    The prophecy continues with prophetic echoes of the Sermon on the Mount. “The anav (the needy, meek, and especially the saintly) shall akal (be fed) and saba (be completely satisfied). They shall praise Yahweh that darash (seek, follow, and worship) Him, your lebab (heart or understanding) shall live forever.”  (Psalm 22:26) There were no capitalizations in paleo Hebrew so the final “you” could be saying that Christ and his teachings shall live forever or that the understanding and souls of those who “seek, follow, and worship” Him shall endure for all eternity—or both.

    The final four verses of the 3000 year old prophetic Psalm reveal that Yahweh knew that evil men would brutalize Him in the manner He has just detailed ten centuries before He allowed it to happen. Yet one thousand years after He inspired this Scripture, Yahshua entered our world in the form of a man to fulfill His mission. That defines love. He proclaims that ultimately, when the last chapter is written and the last act is played out, we will remember His sacrifice and turn to Him because He has done this. “The entire world shall remember and turn to Yahweh and every family and nation shall worship before Him. For the realm is Yahweh’s. He has mashal (dominion, and is the Governor) of the nations. From the prosperous to those who have descended into the dust, they will all bow to Him, as no one can keep his own soul alive. Posterity shall serve Him, and it shall be saphar (recorded or inscribed) to the Lord for dor (a revolution of time, an age). They shall come and nagad (expose, predict, explain, manifest, announce, and declare) his tsedaqah (receptiveness, objectivity, justice, moral virtue, and righteousness) to a people that shall be born that He has asah (done, bore, accomplished, bestowed) this.” (Psalm 22:27-31)

    I do not know how anyone can read this and not be moved to conviction, to tears, to action. Prophecy doesn’t get any more relevant than this. No words sing more beautifully or more clearly. Yahweh predicted his role in the single greatest act in human history. He committed it to writing three thousand years ago so that when it happened we would know that He bestowed His gift—His sacrifice—because He loves us and wants us to live eternally with Him.

    Here is John 14:

    “Iesou [Pronounced EE AY SU, was designed to transliterate Yahshua, Hebrew for savior. There was no “Y” or “SH” sound in Greek. And the “A” at the end of His name couldn’t be added without violating grammatical rules. Since we have the ability to replicate the correct sounds toady, Yahshua] said, ‘I Am [Yahweh means “I Am”] the hodos (way, route and means) and the truth, and the life; no one erchomai (appears before or accompanies) the Pater (Father), but through Me. If you ginosko (know or understand) Me, you ginosko My Father also. You have horao (seen, experienced, beheld) Him.... He who has horao Me has horao the Father. [Yahshua is claiming that He is Yahweh in the flesh.] Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father meno (abiding or dwelling) in Me [Yahweh’s Spirit] does His works. Pisteuo (trust in or rely upon) Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise rely upon the account of the works themselves. [Christ performed countless miracles to confirm his deity.] Amen (This is trustworthy) what I say to you; he who pisteuo (trusts in and relies upon) Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I poreuomai (traverse, or go) to the Father. And whatever you aiteo (ask, desire, or require) in My onoma (name, authority, or character), that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Huios (Son, as in figurative kinship). If you ask Me anything in My onoma, I will do it. If you agapao (love in a moral sense) Me, you will tereo (keep an eye on) My entole (prescriptions). And I will ask the Father, and He will didomi (give or bestow upon) you allos (a) Parakletos (Intercessor, Advocate, Comforter), that He may meno (abide, indwell, or be with) you aion (forever); that is the Pneuma (Holy Spirit) of Truth, whom the world cannot lambano (receive), because it does not theoreo (discern, experience, consider, or behold) Him or ginosko (know or understand) Him, but you ginosko Him because He meno (abides or dwells) with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphanos (bereaved, comfortless, or fatherless); I will erchomai (come back and enter) you. After a little while the world will see Me no more [He’s predicting his crucifixion]; but you will theoreo (experience, behold, or look upon) Me; because I live [He’s predicting his resurrection], you shall live also. [That’s the Gospel: we get to live forever with Him because He sacrificed Himself as payment for our sins—the final solution.] In that day you shall know and understand that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”

    The Spirit of the Messiah, Yahshua, is the Holy Spirit, which is Yahweh. And collectively these manifestations of Yahweh created us and called out the ekklesia. These are all manifestations of the same thing. It’s not three persons like Matthew, Mark, and John. It’s Yahweh the Spirit, the Creator, the Savior, the Comforter. For example: my name is Craig; there is only one of me. Yet I am a father, a son, and a comforter to my family. Water’s three forms—ice liquid, and vapor—are all pure water. Their substance does not changed—just their manifestation as a result of their level of energy. 

    Sam, I hope this helped. Like I said, I’m always concerned when I’m asked to provide a short answer to a big question. 
     
     
    Furthermore, I think you would be doing people a great service if you were to write a chronological listing of the Quran.
     
    There isn’t one—there are five. And there are problems with all of them. The surahs are jumbled internally as well as jumbled in the order they are presented. Some surahs have verses that were “revealed” 10 to 15 years after other verses in the same revelation. The order I have them in Prophet of Doom is as good as it gets—especially for early Mecca and all of Medina. But I’ll supplement what I have done by posting the five charts that attempt to order Allah’s mess. Now all I have to do is find the documents I used a couple of years ago to do what I did. 
     
    Finally, I am sending you my responses to Nadir. They are in the rough Draft stages and maybe edited before they are published on our site. One file exposes Nadir for lying like his demon prophet, showing that he ran like the demented demonic coward that he is. The other two are a series of replies to his Science filth. The first part is outlining the methodology that I will be using in accordance with Nadir's beliefs as a Salafi, Wahhabi Muslim. The second is a direct response to some of his arguments, with more to follow, Yahshua willing.
     
    You have my permission to use information from the files and edit them in line with your style, but please do't post them in their entirety until they come out on our site.
     
    I hope you enjoy them. Take care.
    Sam
     
    Sam, I have copied your files in Word docs and I look forward to reading them. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to edit them in my style, should that be useful. You may do the same with anything you find on our site or in my books. We are both serving Yahweh in this mission. Time is short, the workers are few, and the battle is large. I am so very pleased you have opened this dialog and I look forward to serving with you for as long as Yahshua allows us to engage. In the mission to expose and repudiate Islam—to free Muslims from it and us from the terror it inspires—I’ve always considered your site, Answering Islam, to be the very best.
     
    In Yahweh’s name,
    Craig 


    I understand and agree with your priorities, Sam. But
    unfortunately, quick answers and sound bytes do more
    harm than good. It’s why the 1500 pages long. And what
    I believe is unimportant—it’s what Yahweh’s Scriptures
    say that counts.

     
    I agree. But unfortunately not everyone's reading of the text is
    actually what the text is saying. So Yahweh's scriptures are essential, but at
    times our reading of those scriptures can be skewed.
     
    That’s true. That is why I like to amplify Scripture from the original Hebrew and Greek and why I like to review large segments in context, pulling the teaching of the NT and OT together. When a line is quoted from a single English translation, a person can twist it to sponsor most any notion.

     
    As you know, Sam, the word “Trinity” does not appear
    in the Bible. Yahweh never says he’s three. Most of
    the OT prophecies regarding Messiah are in Yahweh’s
    voice. And Yahshua’s words in John 14 are very clear:
    Yahshua is Yahweh in the form of a man and the Holy
    Spirit is Yahweh’s Spirit.

     
    I agree that the word Trinity is not mentioned, but that is not a valid
    argument against the Bible teaching what the doctrine of the Trinity
    entails. The word isn't what matters, but whether if the Bible teaches
    what the word entails. For instance, you will not find within the Bible any
    inspried statement telling you how many books form the canon of the
    Scriptures, nor do many of the inspired wiritings identify their
    authors, i.e. the book of Hebrews. But this doesn't really matter much as far as
    the authority, canonization, integrity and preservation of God's Word is
    concerned.
     
    Sam, this is not a good argument. When we extrapolate in this way, implying that the words don’t matter, we can get ourselves into all kinds of trouble. And there are far too many words and thoughts that politically and economically minded clerics have added to Bible translations that actually corrupt Yahweh’s message. I think you’d be surprised by what I discovered when writing the Ekklesia chapter of Future History.
     
    Moreover, pertaining to this paragraph, Yahshua considered the OT Scripture. While I believe that the NT was inspired and while I trust what it says, based upon what it says and how it says it, the NT does not call itself Scripture. And by comparison to the OT, the NT has been very poorly preserved. Further, the author of a book is meaningless if Yahweh inspired the words. And thankfully, He gave us a test for that, called prophecy.

     
    Furthermore, when you say Yashua is Yahweh in the form of man I
    wholeheartedly agree with you, but this doesn't tell me anything about
    the inter-relationships of Yahweh, i.e. whether Yahweh is a singular
    consciouness within a single Being, or are there a plurality of persons
    that eternally coexist within one Being.
     
    There is just one God. All of God, however, could not fit inside the man. Much of the dynamic of the inter-relationship between Yahweh and Yahshua was for us—for us to understand the kind of relationship Yahweh wants to have with us—father-son. When I write the book after Future History, I intend to expand on the nature of Yahweh/Yahshua as He is comprehensively presented in His Scripture. But for now, to answer your question, Yahweh does not have three personas, nor three personalities, nor are there three of Him. Yahweh can manifest Himself in many ways, however. Two of these manifestations are Yahshua and the Holy Spirit. And both of these manifestations only exist for a singular purpose—to draw us to Him.
     
    In FH and to a lesser degree in POD, I cover the Scriptural evidence that Yahweh is four dimensional. Understanding this is helpful in appreciating how He can manifest Himself in different ways.

     
    The Old Testament itself furnishes evidence that Yahweh is
    mutli-personal.
    You can read some of what of I have written about this subject here:
     
    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam1.htm
     
    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/gabriel.htm
     
    But from what I gather I see that you do in a way affirm the distinctions since you affirm that Yahsua is Yahweh's Son, which implies a distinction of some kind.
     
    We misunderstand why Yahshua used the term son. Yahshua was not a second generation Deity, which means he could not have been Yahweh’s son in the sense we use the word. In the Messianic manifestation, Yahweh demonstrated the kind of relationship He was seeking with us by establishing a tangible example in Yahshua.

     
    Just one typo. You quote John 14: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father IS Me?
    It actually says is IN me.
     
    Thanks, it was a typo. I made the change. However, Yahshua being in Yahweh and Yahweh being in Yahshua, when put in the context of the whole statement is the same as saying that Yahweh is Yahshua and Yahshua is Yahweh. That is the point of the whole chapter.

     
    The Spirit of the Messiah, Yahshua, is the Holy
    Spirit, which is Yahweh. And collectively these
    manifestations of Yahweh created us and called out the
    ekklesia. These are all manifestations of the same
    thing. It’s not three persons like Matthew, Mark, and
    John. It’s Yahweh the Spirit, the Creator, the Savior,
    the Comforter. For example: my name is Craig; there is
    only one of me. Yet I am a father, a son, and a
    comforter to my family. Water’s three forms—ice
    liquid, and vapor—are all pure water. Their substance
    does not changed—just their manifestation as a result
    of their level of energy.

     
    You mention "manifestations of Yahweh" which can imply Oneness, that
    there is only one center of consciousness or Person who is Yahweh and that he
    manifests himself as all three. But you may also mean by manifestations
    that there are real distinctions between the three, not that one Person is
    manifesting himself in three different ways. So I am still a little
    confused.
     
    You and I will not fully understand the nature of Yahweh while we are three dimensional and mortal. But I can tell you that you can’t go wrong with the first summation above.

     
    I will try to read your stuff and see what I can gather from it.
     
    Take care.
    Sam
     
    Thanks for sharing Sam. After dealing with Muslims all day it is such a pleasure to converse with you. I enjoy discussing these challenging issues and trying to understand them better. The more I learn, the more I think, the more magnificent Yahweh appears.
     
    Craig 



     

    Hello,
    
    
    
    Sorry for the lengthy email. I didn't intend this to turn out into a debate, 
    
    so i will try to make this my last email.

    Sam, I don't see this as a debate. It's an enlightened discussion between friends about important issues. Please don't make this your last email.

    You write:

    That’s true. That is why I like to amplify Scripture
    from the original Hebrew and Greek and why I like to
    review large segments in context, pulling the teaching
    of the NT and OT together. When a line is quoted from
    a single English translation, a person can twist it to
    sponsor most any notion.


    Yet even citing Greek and Hebrew doesn't really help an argument if one
    doesn't understand that words are defined within their specific
    contexts. So it isn't simply enough to cite the lexical meanings of words, but see
    which meaning best fits the specific

    When scholars choose which word they think fits, they are at best guessing. But that's not the biggest problem. No language translate word for word to another. And many Hebrew and Greek words have many meanings and important shadings--all of which are lost when we read word for word translations. A great example is the Hebrew word "shem." It is always translated "name." But that is one of 13 meanings--and by no means the most important one. By not amplifying the Hebrew to include them all the reader is cheated out of 90% of what Yahweh was telling us. And one of the benefits of Biblical Hebrew and Greek being dead languages, the meanings of words no longer shifts in those languages like it does in our own. So when Strongs or others say that shem meant character, position, nature, mark and authority in addition to name when Yahweh inspired it to be used by His prophets, it still means all of those things.

    Now I agree that context is important--but there are three types of context: place and time, subject, and proximity. This is why I wrote Prophet of Doom in chronological order, referencing place and time, while keeping verses the within their contextual flow. But then I added a 170 page appendix that reordered the 3000 most important quotes in the context of topic. As I review the Bible for the book on prophecy, I am dealing with these same forms of context--all of which help shine light on the intended meanings and message.

    You then say:

    Sam, this is not a good argument.

    In all fairness, that is my argument against your claim that the word
    Trinity isn't in the Bible. That is a very bad argument.

    Sam, I know what you were trying to say, I just don't think you used examples that helped your cause. That is why I dealt with them individually in my reply.

    Now, as for my point, while it's possible that Yahweh wants us to know something that He does not explicitly say, it's not as likely as if He actually said it. And that's all I meant by the word Trinity not being there. It is less likely that the concept of Trinity is important to Him if He doesn't say it or explain it, that's all.

    When we extrapolate
    in this way, implying that the words don’t matter, we
    can get ourselves into all kinds of trouble.


    In all fairness you are now misrepresenting me. I didn't say words
    didn't matter, they do. I said that the word Trinity isn't required to be in
    the Bible in order for it to be true.

    Your criticism here is valid. Your email was phrased in such a way that my comment was potentially valid, but not necessarily so. I am hyper sensitive about man made doctrines. Thanks to Constantine and the RCC, much of what Christians practice as Christianity is actually Satanic. The more I study, the more concerned I become with how lost the church has become.

    And I have read very old and very well researched pieces on the creation of the Trinity doctrine and how and why the word "persons" or "personas" was first used as a subset of Greek philosophy. It's too long to cover here, but the bottom line is that in the context of the time the position was first articulated, persona in a philosophical sense meant manifestations. The word meaning has shifted over time giving folks the wrong impression that persona was to mean three individuals.

    Unless you are trying to argue that we cannot use unbiblical terms to explain what the Bible teaches, then I really don't see your point. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion we shouldn't even be having this conversation in English since the Bible writers didn't speak English.

    Now here you are wrong. This issue isn't what language we are speaking. The issue is Hebrew and Greek both had a word for three and didn't use it as it relates to God. That's significant, although not totally conclusive. Therefore, the concept of Trinity is extra Biblical in any language. And there is no problem having a discussion of the Bible using words that convey concepts foreign or extracurricular to the Biblical writers. But when we do, we are not on nearly as strong a doctrinal footing as we would be when we use appropriate and full translations of Scriptural nomenclature.

    We need to start speaking Hebrew and Greek and use their thought patterns and expressions.

    No we don't. We just need to understand the implications of the words they were inspired to use in all three contexts to more fully understand Yahweh's Scripture. Fortunately, there are wonderful tools available to us and the task has been made much easier.

    And I know this is not what you believe. Therefore, your claim that
    trinity isn't in the Bible doesn't really prove anything.

    While I've covered this before, the fact that neither the Hebrew or Greek writer were inspired over the course of 1500 pages to link the word three with God is very significant. It is evidence, not proof in and of itself. That is why I said it in one brief sentence and then provided you with several hundred sentences which provided much more important evidence. Again, if one sentence were sufficient to demonstrate an important Divine truth, Yahweh wouldn't have given us so much Scripture.

    And there are far too many words and thoughts that politically
    and economically minded clerics have added to Bible
    translations that actually corrupt Yahweh’s message. I
    think you’d be surprised by what I discovered when
    writing the Ekklesia chapter of Future History.


    I am sure there are.

    It's just stunning Sam. I hope that your schedule allows you to read some of what I've discovered by amplifying Yahweh's Scriptures in Future History. He has revealed things that are the antithesis of what most Christians practice. And please understand, I am now way suggesting that you fall into this group, although I once did. The issue of Trinity has roots in the Babylonian religion, yet unlike Christmas and Easter, a case can be made for it using Scripture. The place where you and I seem to differ is persona vs. manifestation. I believe that Yahweh is Yahshua is the Holy Spirit and thus that Yahshua and the Holy Spirit are just manifestations of Himself that Yahweh used and uses to reach out to us, to show us what He's like, to demonstrate His love, to atone for our sins, and to comfort and empower us.

    Moreover, pertaining to this paragraph, Yahshua
    considered the OT Scripture. While I believe that the
    NT was inspired and while I trust what it says, based
    upon what it says and how it says it, the NT does not
    call itself Scripture.


    You are incorrect here. I have documented from the New Testament itself
    where specific books are identified as Scripture. You can read my
    research here:

    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/inspired.htm

    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo3.htm

    Let me give you just one example.

    Paul writes in his first epistle to Timothy:

    "For THE SCRIPTURE says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out
    the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’" 1 Timothy 5:18

    Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 AND LUKE 10:7:

    "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for
    the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."
    Luke 10:7

    Paul calls Luke’s Gospel Scripture and places it on the same level of
    Moses’ writings! Additional evidence that Paul is citing Luke's Gospel can be
    seen from a comparison of the Greek:

    Luke 10:7 - ... axios gar ho ergates tou misthou autou.

    1 Timothy 5:18 - ... axios ho ergates tou misthou autou.

    There is more evidence in the links I gave you.

    Sam, I have read all of the evidence and while I view the NT as Scripture because it shows every sign of being inspired by the same Spirit who inspired the OT, and because of its prophecy, the case for the NT calling itself Scripture is, in my opinion, weak. Yes I know what Paul has to say about Luke, but that's as good as it gets. There isn't any verification as to which books belong and which should have been excluded. The final determination was made under the rule of a Satan worshiper in very politicized circumstances by the vote of men. And in Future History, I believe in the Ekklesia chapter, I amplify how Paul differentiates between his letters and the OT. In it, Paul references, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars, the value of amplification, in that is was a rabbinical practice during his day. Now mind you, on this point, our only point of contention is whether the NT calls its books Scripture. We both agree that the NT was inspired by Yahweh and thus is Scripture. Like I said, prophecy alone proves it.

    Now if you are saying that we do not find any book or passage saying
    that the entire New Testament canon is inspired, that argument would also be
    true of the Old Testament. We do not have any specific or explicit statement
    in either sections telling us the exact length of the OT, nor do all the
    books of the OT begin with "Thus saith the Lord," or "The Word of the Lord
    came to such and such" etc.

    But we do have confirmation from Yahshua of the OT canon. He quoted from most books and didn't refute the appropriateness of any. And we know precisely what the OT canon was, and precisely what each book said during the days Christ preached. The Dead Sea Scrolls act as irrefutable confirmation. So, as a believer that Yahshua is Yahweh, the fact that He validated the Scriptural canon of what we now call the OT is, absolute proof. 

    And by they way, Yahweh almost never, if ever, inspired a prophet, wise man, or scribe to write "thus saith the Lord," or "the word of the Lord." He almost always used His shem--Yahweh. And that's real important. 

    And this is precisely what I was asking you. How do you know what
    either the Old or New Testament actually is if you only stick to the Bible? You
    don't. But that is a different subject.

    I've just covered this. We know absolutely for the OT in that Yahshua confirmed it. As for the NT, we know as well but for different reasons. The first is Yahweh's most used test--prophecy. One errant prediction and the prophet is false and thus not inspired. Further, the intellect, personality, nature, character teachings of the NT are equivalent to the magnificence of those things in the OT. It is obvious that they were inspired by the same Spirit. And all of this can be determined by sticking explicitly to the Bible.

    And by comparison to the OT,
    the NT has been very poorly preserved. Further, the
    author of a book is meaningless if Yahweh inspired the
    words. And thankfully, He gave us a test for that,
    called prophecy.


    Sorry. Have to disagree with you even here. There are fewer OT MSS in
    comparison to the NT.

    If you mean that there are more variants within the NT textual
    tradition, well that is to be expected seeing that we have more extant MSS than we
    do for the OT. But again, more MSS means there will be more variants. Yet
    since we have so many extant MSS of the NT, its text is assured beyond
    dispute.

    In fact, having fewer MSS doesn't give us a high degree of certainty
    regarding whether the book is preserved and accurately reflects the
    originals, since these extant copies could have been made off of
    corrupt versions.

    Furthermore, most of the extant copies of the OT are actually hundreds
    of years removed from the originals. For instance, we do not have any
    copies of the Pentateuch which comes within a generation from the time of Moses,
    but we do have copies of the NT that do.

    Now, I am not saying that the OT hasn't been preserved. I do believe it
    has. I am just taking exception with your statements.

    Sam, you raise valid points with the number of fragments and manuscripts and with the proximity to the original. I often reference Evidence that Demands a verdict, the work of Josh McDowell, in this regard. I included the points you and he raised in both TWT and POD so we concur here. But you have missed two important elements. First, as it relates to the OT, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the text has been faithfully preserved for 2250 years. That is very significant. While we don't have many old copies, what we have today is a near perfect match for what existed over 2000 years ago. And with the NT you forgot to mention that most every page of most every MSS we possess differs with the other MSS. Many scholars say most every line differs in one way or another. Now, that does not mean that they differ on any major theological issue or that we can't reasonably reconstruct something that is very close to what was originally written, but our confidence regarding exactitude must be tempered with the reality of the evidence. 

    Third, prophecy in of itself doesn't prove canonicity. See for instance
    Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

    In fact using your criteria you have just argued for the canonicity of
    the book of Wisdom, chapter 2, from the NAB version:

    Sam, at this point you quote more than I have time to read this evening. In FH I reference many places in which Yahweh tells us that the purpose of prophecy is to demonstrate that He is the inspiration behind His words. You seem to be more concerned with canonicity than I am or that Yahweh is. All I know is that only Yahweh can maneuver in time and thus correctly predict the future all of the time without exception. And I know that a quarter of the Bible was prophetic when it was written for a reason--it proves that it was inspired by God.

    Now you would be correct that it's not the only proof, but it's the best one.

    12 2 3 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets
    himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
    and charges us with violations of our training.
    13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the
    LORD.
    14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a
    hardship for us,
    15 Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
    16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things
    impure.
    He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his
    Father.
    17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen
    to
    him.
    18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver
    him from the hand of his foes.
    19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have
    proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
    20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words,
    God will take care of him."

    Here it is from the RSV:

    [12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
    because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
    he reproaches us for sins against the law,
    and accuses us of sins against our training.
    [13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
    and calls himself a child of the Lord.
    [14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
    [15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
    because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
    and his ways are strange.
    [16] We are considered by him as something base,
    and he avoids our ways as unclean;
    he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
    and boasts that God is his father.
    [17] Let us see if his words are true,
    and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
    [18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
    and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
    [19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
    that we may find out how gentle he is,
    and make trial of his forbearance.
    [20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
    for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

    Now compare this with Matthew 27:

    As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
    they forced him to carry the cross. 33They came to a place called Golgotha
    (which means The Place of the Skull). 34There they offered Jesus wine to
    drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35When
    they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.[2]
    36And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37Above his head they
    placed the written charge against him:|sc THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    38Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his
    left.
    39Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40and
    saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three
    days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"
    41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the
    elders mocked him. 42"He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself!
    He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will
    believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants
    him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' " 44In the same way the robbers who
    were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

    How did the author of  Wisdom accurately predict the sufferings of
    Christ at the hands of those who thought they were righteous? Therefore, seeing
    that Wisdom contains accurate prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah, it
    must be canonical.

    Getting one prediction right can be significant but it is not proof in itself. Moreover, this prediction was made in Psalm 22 and in Isaiah 53. So it well could have been copied.

    Let me just comment on some points real quickly:

    We misunderstand why Yahshua used the term son.
    Yahshua was not a second generation Deity, which means
    he could not have been Yahweh’s son in the sense we
    use the word. In the Messianic manifestation, Yahweh
    demonstrated the kind of relationship He was seeking
    with us by establishing a tangible example in Yahshua.


    It may be true that some may misunderstand, but it is not the case that
    all misunderstand. I don't know of any informed Trinitarian who says that
    Yahshua's sonship makes him a second generation Deity.

    I know that and that was my point. Sonship as we use the word requires the son to be a generation after the father. So, in that sense, Yahshua would have had to be a second generation Deity if He were literally Yahweh's son as we use the word. Since Yahshua wasn't a second generation Deity, His Sonship is meant to imply a spiritual truth and to convey an important example for us to emulate.

    Besides, Yahweh, whom you believe is one in Persons, doesn't need to
    demonstrate the kind of relationship he seeks with us by manifesting as
    his own Son, since a Son implies personal and relational distinctions which
    per your view Yahweh does not have.

    Sam, I'm worn out. I haven't the energy to repeat what I've already said or to amplify further the reasons Yahweh chose to call Himself in the Messianic manifestation the Son of man and the Son of God. They are important and I intend to include them in an upcoming book but it's too much to write in this email.

    Thanks, it was a typo. I made the change. However,
    Yahshua being in Yahweh and Yahweh being in Yahshua,
    when put in the context of the whole statement is the
    same as saying that Yahweh is Yahshua and Yahshua is
    Yahweh. That is the point of the whole chapter.


    I don't agree that this proves that Yahshua Yahweh anymore than Yahweh
    living in the disciples and in us makes all of us Yahweh.

    Now you are arguing with Yahweh, not me. Amplify and read John 1 and all of John 14 again. If you do not think that Yahshua said that He was Yahweh, I don't know how to convince you.

    "I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world,
    and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your
    name--the name you gave me--so THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE... My prayer is
    not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through
    their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and
    I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you
    have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be
    one as we are one: I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME. May they be brought to complete
    unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even
    as you have loved me." John 17:20-23

    I believe there are better proofs to show that Yahshua is Yahweh, but
    not the Father, since Yahweh is not unipersonal.

    Are you saying that when Yahshua was referencing the Father He was referencing a God other than Yahweh? I don't understand what you are saying here. And as for your capitalized pronoun, US, it is the royal we used throughout scripture. Language makes it very difficult to list three manifestations and not use us, we, our and them. Elohiym is the plural of El and yet no scholar ever translates it Gods. And that is because it's used as the royal we.

    Your other examples show that you are oneness. You say:

    For example: my name is Craig;
    there is only one of me. Yet I am a father, a son, and a comforter to my family.


    The problem is that you are not your own father, nor are you your own
    son. You are someone else's son and someone else's father. Yet you are
    saying that Yahweh is his own Son and he is his own Father, so your analogy is
    bad here and doesn't reflect what you believe about Yahweh at all.

    Yahshua manifests Himself as Father, as Son, and as Comforter. That's as far as the analogy goes.

    Water’s three forms—ice
    liquid, and vapor—are all pure water. Their
    substance
    does not changed—just their manifestation as a
    result
    of their level of energy.


    But again this analogy is not at all analogous with your belief in
    Yahweh's manifestations. For instance, you believe, I assume,  that Yahweh is
    Spirit while at the same time he manifests as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit
    and Yahweh are two manifestations which speak to and know each other. See
    John 4:24; Romans 8:26-27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12

    So you are basically saying that Yahweh who is Spirit manifests himself
    as Spirit and then talks to himself. Then in what way can the Holy Spirit
    be a manifestation of Yahweh when Yahweh is both Holy and Spirit by nature?
    So what's the purpose of even manifesting himself as the Holy Spirit when
    he already is both Holy and Spirit, and then talk to that manifestation?

    Yes, manifestations can interact and they can work together. This is true with the water example and it is true with Yahweh. Yahweh is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of His Spirit that Yahweh gives us. The HS is not all of Yahweh. The HS does not make us Yahweh. But it does mean that a manifestation of Yahweh is in us.

    Anyway Craig, you clearly deny that Yahweh exists in three Persons,
    which means that you are in fact affirming oneness theology. You know that
    both positions cannot be biblically correct. They can both be wrong.
    Therefore, one of us is holding to a false and heretical view of Yahweh.

    Here is a site that biblically refutes oneness teachings:

    www.christiandefense.org

    I hope and pray that God guides us both to his truth and that we never
    compromise that truth.

    Please read those files that I sent you with an open heart. I love your
    work against Muslims, but our views of God are contradictory and cannot be
    reconciled.

    Take care.
    Sam

    Sam, I obviously disagree with both your assessment of the oneness of Yahweh and with your insistence on three Gods. But remember, the Trinity issue was more important to you than anything else--it's all you wanted to know about what I believed in your first email. You have made one issue your litmus test. Since it's not Yahweh's litmus test, I wonder why it is yours? And I wonder why you call yourself a Trinitarian? I call myself a Yahudi--a follower of Yah. While I may be wrong on many things, I know that there are far more important issues to our Creator than the one that you have made the ultimate dividing line.

    Your friend,

    Craig
     


     

    Craig's concluding remarks on this topic can be read at: "One God or Three?"
     

     

    Craig Winn's Follow-up Response:

     
    The following is an exchange between Craig and a reader regarding the nature of God.
     

    Your presentation of how and why Yahweh manifests Himself as Yahshua and the Holy Spirit is insightful and thought provoking. Yet your conclusions on the Trinity are different than those of others, especially of the position Sam endorses in his email exchange with you. Would you mind examining his position and then explaining what you believe the Bible teaches?  (R)

    I?d be pleased to confirm what the Scriptures say about Yahweh?s nature. But first, I feel compelled to warn you that focusing on one aspect of Yahweh?s teaching is more likely to be divisive than unifying?and that is especially true as it relates to the ?Trinity.? Such was the case with Sam. Rather than capitalizing on my desire for us to work together and form a productive relationship, he chose to debate the nuances of one of many hundreds of spiritual issues -- and one no one can ever fully comprehend or explain. Then to make matters worse, he maximized the points of disagreement rather than agreement. His focus turned something that could have done tremendously good, into something that is now viewed negatively by both of us.

    To begin, the doctrine of the Trinity is not presented in Scripture so any position on this subject requires the author to interpret and extrapolate. If the acceptance any particular view on this subject was important, I can assure you that Yahweh?s prophets, wise men and scribes would have mentioned it in passing at least once over the course of 2000 pages and 2000 years. So while I am confident that the concept of ?manifestation? is accurate, and that the doctrine Sam endorses of ?persons? is errant, it is far less important then he and others would have you believe. With that in mind, I?ll gladly address your requests. (Craig) 

    Please explain why you use the word "manifestation" rather than "persons."

    That?s a perfect place to begin s
    ince this debate is over a word. So let?s examine what that word ?person? means first.

    Person is defined by Webster as ?a human being, a man, a woman, or a child.? Yahweh created these so He isn?t these. However, He can manifest Himself as one of these. The next definitions of ?person? are equally errant when applied to Yahweh. They are: ?the individual personality of a human being,? and ?the body of a human being.? By the time we reach the 4th through 7th definitions, we still are missing the mark with ?person:? ?the body in its external aspect,? ?a partnership or corporation, recognized by law as having rights and duties,? ?a grammatical category applied to pronouns and verbs used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance, the person addressed, and other people or things spoken about.? The 8th and final definition, in order of preference in common usage is: ?any of the three modes of being in the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.? Here, the word is simply used but not defined and thus it has no meaning. And worse than having no meaning, one has to disregard the 7 most common actual definitions of the word to understand a use that is not defined. Thus according to Webster, using ?persons? to define Yahweh?s nature is senseless.  

    Now, let?s turn to the word I prefer to use. Webster defines ?manifestation? as: ?the act of manifesting, to make the nature of something clear, an outward and perceptible indication, a public demonstration.? All four definitions fit perfectly. 

    In that regard, I stumbled upon something interesting while writing The Future?s History. Daniel is the only place where the word the Hebrew word Messiah is used as a title. Consider what Gabriel, the source of this revelation had to say about Him. 

    While predictions regarding the Messiah?s nature, advents, mission and message permeate the Tanakh, the title itself can only be found twice in the entirety of Yahweh?s Scripture. Both occurrences are right here in Daniel. With that in mind, we must look very carefully at what is being said??until the Mashiyach (Anointed, Consecrated, Messiah), the Nagiyd (from nagad?the one who stands out front, boldly and opposite, manifesting and announcing, exposing, predicting, explaining, praising, certifying, declaring, denouncing, expounding plainly as a messenger rehearsing the report; an honorable leader in all aspects of life?physical and spiritual, a Governor and a Prince)??  

    ?Anointed? means to be covered by or filled with Yahweh?s Spirit. And while that?s important, let?s examine what ?Nagiyd? says about the nature of the Messiah. He will be a ?manifestation who announces and exposes? specifically what Yahweh is like and what must be done to reach Him. The ?Anointed One will stand out in front of men??a very clear and accurate presentation of the purpose of Yahweh?s Messianic manifestation. God took the form of a man to demonstrate His nature in front of men.  

    Would the ?tri-unity? of time (past, present, future), and the example of height, depth, and width be appropriate analogies? While each component is indistinguishable and inseparable from the others, at the same time it's true that each are unique. And as with your water, vapor, ice analogy each are made up of the same substance, yet each have unique characteristics: ice is not vapor, vapor is not liquid, liquid is not ice. Yet they are indistinguishable and inseparable in their substance. Is this a correct reflection of your views?

    Yes, within reason. No metaphor is perfect. But water (ice, liquid, and vapor), our physical world (height, width, and depth), and time (past, present, and future) are all three manifestations of the same thing. Height is not width yet without width, height is meaningless, for example.

    Here is a quote I pulled from the www.christiandefense.org ? the site which Sam is convinced refutes what he believes you?re teaching:   

    Quote:  ?In Oneness theology God exists as a unipersonal monad, that temporarily manifested as the "modes," "roles," or "offices" of the "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit" at different times. The unipersonal deity of Oneness theology lives in absolute solitude. Hence they deny that God has revealed Himself in three distinct coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. In the end, their theology is decidedly unitarian, which denies the the Person Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.?

    Because you have read my books, articles and replies to emails, you know that one of the most common flaws of those unwilling or unable to engage in rational, evidence-based debate is to manufacturer their own opponent so that they have a foe that you can defeat. It?s call making a straw man. Such is the case here. Much of what is said is grossly inconsistent with my position. Although, it begins correctly. Yahweh preaches Oneness, so there is nothing incorrect about ?oneness.?  

    But from that point on, the ?Oneness? position articulated is a grossly inaccurate. For example, in The Future?s History, I demonstrate that Yahweh?s Scripture is fixated on personal relationship?beriyth?so to rebuke me based on the silly notion that I see Yahweh as ?a unipersonal monad,? is a straw man.  

    Incidentally, the preferred meanings of ?monad? are derogatory. Webster?s most preferred definitions says it means ?flagellated?or whipped, punished, berated, runner-like and branched like a strawberry.? The second definition of monad is ?a protozoan, an element or atom.? Webster?s third most popular definition claims it means ?a group having a valence, or a chemical binding of atoms, of one.? Next, Webster claims a monad is something that is an ?indivisible, metaphysical, thus highly abstract and abstruse, hard to understand and esoteric entity that displays extensive imagination and conceit while having an autonomous life.? I cannot even fathom why anyone would make up such a disgusting view of Yahweh.

    Moving on from ?
    unipersonal monad? we discover that according to some, believing that Yahweh is One, somehow suggests that He is ?temporary.? There is nothing temporary about Yahweh. It is one of the many reasons understanding and using His name, ?I Am,? is so important. I Am means Yahweh is infinite in the dimension of time. Therefore, by definition, Yahweh?s manifestations as the Holy Spirit and as Yahshua cannot be temporary. 

    The Messianic savior and spiritual Comforter manifestations of Yahweh do, however, serve specific roles in their ministry to mankind, so at least that portion of the ?oneness? definition is accurate. A manifestation is distinct in the way water, when heated turns to vapor and when chilled turns to ice. These manifestations of the one thing?water?are distinctly different even though they are made of the same substance. And they perform different roles when in their different manifestations. 

    The quote?s use of ?absolute? is also correct. According to Webster, absolute means ?being fully or perfectly as indicated, complete and free from restriction or limitation.? And while there are some things that Yahweh cannot do, like lie, be immoral, and visit hell, I agree that the most common definition of absolute fits Him.  

    But sadly, the authors of this position go astray at ?solitude.? Webster defines it as ?the state of being or living alone and in seclusion, remoteness.? It is thus the antithesis of personal relationship and therefore the antithesis of the Scripture?s presentation of Yahweh.

    As we move on, for the position piece?s "hence" and "therefore" to have merit, what proceeds them must have merit. Since what went before ?hence? is cesspool of blasphemous words, hence is rendered moot.  

    As for ?deny,? I see Yahshua exactly as Yahshua presented Himself when He was asked by His disciples to ?show us the Father.? It is why I quoted and amplified John 14 in my second reply to Sam and in both POD and in The Future?s History. Yahshua said that He is Yahweh and that He is the Holy Spirit. I believe Him.

    ?Coequal? is a very divisive term when it comes to Yahshua and the Holy Spirit. Reason and reality chafe at easy and comfortable definitions. It?s hard to fathom the Yahshua manifestation of Yahweh as coequal as it would mean that all of the substance, spirit and energy of Yahweh, as well as His infinity in time, would fit into the body of a man. And it would require the transfigured and the resurrected Messiah to be identical to Christ on every other occasion, thus rendering the purpose of these things moot. And it fails to contemplate what required Yahshua to ask why Yahweh?s Spirit had left Him on the cross.  Equally odd would be the idea that the Holy Spirit as He resides in us is all of Yahweh?thus His complete equal. Manifestations of the same thing do not necessarily have to be equal. For example an ice cube and an iceberg are both frozen water but they are not equivalent in mass.

    Trinitarians, as they call themselves,
    are fixated is on the word ?Persons??something that was derived from the Greek philosophers of old. When Christian theologians first conceived the word ?Trinity? and applied it to Yahweh, they used Greek philosophy to make their point. I have read two scholastic articles that were derived from a rebuttal of the Islamic claims that the Trinity of three Persons makes Christianity pagan. Both scholars went to the root inception of the doctrine of the Trinity and thus they exposed the origins of ?persons.? In that the Greek philosophical usage was synonymous with today?s definition of ?manifestations,? I believe that the first scholars to tackle this subject were right. But when we consider the word ?persons? out of the context of Greek philosophy, it has an entirely different meaning. So today, based upon the common understanding of the word ?persons? it would mean that there are three distinct gods and that is not true.

    The
    last line of the quote from the Trinitarian site, simply proves why creating and defeating straw men is a fool?s folly. ?In the end, their theology is decidedly unitarian, which denies the the Person Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.? Jumping to this conclusion based upon their definition of their opponent is an abomination.

    Here is another quote from the same website.  Quote: All non-Christians cults have one definitive commonality: they deny that Jesus Christ is eternal God. By asserting that God is unipersonal (one Person) Oneness leaders teach that Jesus Christ (as the Person of the Son) did not exist before Bethlehem. As with Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness theology teaches that the Person of Jesus Christ was created at a point in time. Hence, Jesus is reduced to a mere temporary "manifestation," "role," or "office" called the "Son." (or "dimension" as Oneness advocate T .D. Jakes)

    This clip is worse than the one before it. The Scripture says that Yahshua is Yahweh and that Yahweh is eternal. That is what I believe. As for ?son,? Yahshua clearly meant something different than our common use of the word as the common usage would make Yahshua a second generation god. Since that is not true, I believe that Yahshua used the terms ?son of man? and ?son of God? to demonstrate in a tangible way for us the kind of up close and personal relationship He wants to develop with us?Father-son.

    The rest of this quote is such a lame attempt at creating a straw man, it isn?t worthy of a reply. Some may hold those odd views, but to associate them to me because I?m a believer that Yahweh is one God, not three, is ridiculous.  

    By way of quick review, we know that Yahweh chose to manifest His Spirit inside of some of His prophet?s of old. We know that at Pentecost?the Miqra of Weeks?Yahweh sent His Spirit to dwell in, empower, instruct, and comfort His Ekklesia. Once joined, His Spirit will never leave us. The Anointed, Messianic, Yahshua manifestation of Yahweh existed in eternity and yet came to earth 2000 years ago and will come to earth again on the Miqra of Tabernacles in 2033. His mission is defined in His name?Yah-Saves. The Yahshua manifestation, like the Holy Spirit manifestation of Yahweh, are Yahweh and thus they exist?infinite in the dimension of time. Yahweh does not have to cease being Yahweh, nor is Yahweh diminished or even divided when Yahweh manifests Himself in the form of Yahshua or the Holy Spirit. Yahweh uses these manifestations of Himself to ?make the nature of something clear, an outward and perceptible indication, a public demonstration.? These manifestations can obviously exist at the same time as Yahweh did not vanish when Yahshua appeared on earth and Yahweh did not evaporate when He sent His Spirit to reside in us.

     

     

    Conclusion:

    As we clearly saw above, the two clowns and stooges are full of confusion and blasphemy!  They follow nothing but man-made lies and conclusions.  As Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran:

    "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge;  That they said (in boast):  'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.'  But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.  Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise.  And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him  (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.  (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"

    Indeed, the Christians follow nothing but conjecture and doubts.  Please visit the following links for further proofs:

    The early Disciples' (John, Peter, Barnabas, etc...) writings all declare that Jesus NEVER GOT CRUCIFIED!

    Please visit: The blessed Jesus in Islam.

    From the Jewish point of view: New evidence that proves that Jesus never resurrected. 

    Jesus was never crucified according to the Gospel of Barnabas.

    The New Testament confirms the Apocalypse (Revelation in Greek) of Peter which claims that Jesus never died on the cross!

    Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible!  According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was.  This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing.  These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

    According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century.  They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter.  They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation".  Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell.  GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good.  This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell.  Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

    Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus?
    It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross.  I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken.  My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion.  I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.  I also showed in Isaiah 52:13 "...he will be raised and lifted up....", which clearly and perfectly agrees with Islam about Jesus never died on the cross.  "Raised and lifted" suggests that Jesus will be picked up right from the cross, or saved right from the cross by Allah Almighty.  It suggests that Jesus will not die, nor get crucified, but rather be raised and lifted by GOD Almighty to Heavens.

    None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

    Jesus was never "disfigured beyond human recognition" in the New Testament as the Old Testament predicted!

    The early Christians rejected Trinity.   Early Christians had major problems and disagreements about who truly Jesus was and whether or not he got crucified or not.

      

      

      

      

    Sam Shamoun's rebuttals section.

    Craig Winn's rebuttals section.

    Answering Trinity.

    Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.  

    See Also:

    The "Son of God" Title in the 1 John 2:22

    Jesus is Yahweh the Son?  See how Christians got this very wrong in the NT, using Jesus' words himself!
    Also, is Islam the anti-Christ system according to 1 John 2:22?

    From: www.answering-christianity.com/convert_christians.htm:

      

    Father and Son Definitions:

    Definition of Key Terms (a discussion between me and a Christian):

    1-  What does "The Father" really mean in the Bible?  How is it defined in Islam? (see point #5 below)  How does the Bible really define it?

    2-  What does "Son of GOD" really mean in the Bible? 

    3-  Jesus had to at least match Melchizedek in Miracles and  Power.  See this text-debate between me and a Christian brother.

    4-  Does the Bible say that Yahweh created Jesus Yes it does

  • John 1:1
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God was with authority
    (same Greek word for satan's rule [2] [3])."
      

  • Detailed discussion about Jesus' Will with ample verses.
      

  • In Islam, there are three "Worlds" or Realms:

  • (a)-  GOD Almighty, who is not seen by anyone or anything, nor is like unto anyone or anything.

    (b)-  The World of Command, which is the invisible world of the Beings that were made by the Word and the Spirit.

    (c)-  The World of Creation, the flush and blood, dust and water physical world and Universes (plural).

    Also visit: Is the Noble Quran a Creator or Creation?

      
      
    "Father" and "Son" in Islam and the Bible:

    5-  Is Islam the anti-Christ system according to 1john 2:22 No it isn't.  Here are some Bible facts regarding "FATHER" and "SON":

    (a)-  Allah Almighty is the Believers' only Guardian (المولى):

  • See Noble Verses 8:40, 22:13, 22:78.  In Arabic we say ولي الأمر , which means "The Legal Guardian".  المولى is derived from the root word ولي  .ولي also means a chosen friend to Allah Almighty, as in the following point.   

  • (b)-  FRIENDS = SONS in the Bible and Quran (ولي , وليهما and خليلا):

    We further read the following in the Bible:

    Isaiah 41:8
    "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,

    Chronicles 20:7
    Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?

    James 2:23
    And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.

    So being GOD Almighty's "SON" in the Bible is equal to being GOD Almighty's "FRIEND".  Now compare this to the following from the Holy Quran:

    [002:257] Allah is the friend (ولي) and patron of those who believe. He brings them out of the depths of darkness into light. While those who do not believe, have the forces of evil as their friends; they lead them out of light, into the very depths of darkness. Such ones shall be the inmates of the fire. They will stay there forever.

    [003:122] (And remember) when the two groups among you lost heart (and almost fell out), even though Allah was their Friend and Protector (وليهما)? In Allah (alone), should the believers place their trust!

    [004:125] Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend (خليلا).

    So the Bible's "FATHER" & "SON" for GOD Almighty and the Believers is clearly metaphoric, and it only means that GOD Almighty:

    1-  Is the Protector.
    2-  Is the Friend.
    3-  Is the Guardian.

    Please visit the following link to further see what Words the Glorious Quran uses for these words and definitions:

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1368.msg5203.html#msg5203

      
    (c)-  BEGET = CHOSE:

    Regarding the following verse, and many others like it:

    King James Bible Psalm 2:7
    I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Let us look at Noble Verses 27:59, 3:33, 3:42, 7:144, 22:75, 35:32, 38:47, 39:4 from the Glorious Quran:

    [027:059] Say: Praise be to God, and Peace on his servants whom He has chosen اصطفى (for his Message). (Who) is better?- God or the false gods they associate (with Him)?

    ‏27:59 قل الحمد لله وسلام على عباده الذين اصطفى ءالله خير اما يشركون

    [003:033] God did choose اصطفى Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,-

    ‏3:33 ان الله اصطفى ادم ونوحا وال ابراهيم وال عمران على العالمين

    [003:042] Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God hath chosen thee اصطفاك and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.

    ‏3:42 واذ قالت الملائكة يامريم ان الله اصطفاك وطهرك واصطفاك على نساء العالمين

    [007:144] (God) said: "O Moses! I have chosen thee اصطفيتك above (other) men, by the mission I (have given thee) and the words I (have spoken to thee): take then the (revelation) which I give thee, and be of those who give thanks."

    ‏7:144 قال ياموسى اني اصطفيتك على الناس برسالاتي وبكلامي فخذ ما اتيتك وكن من الشاكرين

    [022:075] God chooses يصطفي messengers from angels and from men for God is He Who hears and sees (all things).

    ‏22:75 الله يصطفي من الملائكة رسلا ومن الناس ان الله سميع بصير

    [035:032] Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen اصطفينا: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by God's leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest Grace.

    ‏35:32 ثم اورثنا الكتاب الذين اصطفينا من عبادنا فمنهم ظالم لنفسه ومنهم مقتصد ومنهم سابق بالخيرات باذن الله ذلك هو الفضل الكبير

    [038:047] They were, in Our sight, truly, of the company of the Elect المصطفين and the Good.

    ‏38:47 وانهم عندنا لمن المصطفين الاخيار

    [039:004] Had God wished to take to Himself an (actual) son, He could have chosen لاصطفى whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistible.

    ‏39:4 لو اراد الله ان يتخذ ولدا لاصطفى مما يخلق مايشاء سبحانه هو الله الواحد القهار

    Furthermore, when Jesus was asked about when the Hour will come, he replied by saying that only GOD Almighty Knows, and that no one knows, and that Jesus himself also didn't know.  Please visit:

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/questions.htm
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac7.htm#links

    Jesus spelled it out clearly that he knew NOT.  And as to calling GOD Almighty "Father", and that Islam denies that GOD Almighty is an ACTUAL FATHER to anyone, in Islam GOD Almighty is called:

    1-  Rab - Lord, Father (you are the Rab of your home for being the husband and the father).

    2-  Wali - Guardian.

    In the old Aramaic and Hebrew, GOD Almighty was called what-is-equivalent-to-Islam our Rab and Wali.  But that doesn't make GOD Almighty our actual Father.  This is exactly as Judaism metaphors such as idolatry is equivalent to spiritual adultery.  No Jew is actually married to GOD Almighty to actually commit a personal marriage-adultery against GOD Almighty!  Yet, the Jews use metaphors like these.  Islam came to straighten all of this out and to set the record straight that GOD Almighty has no son and no daughter.  Otherwise, why would GOD Almighty torture us to Hell if we were His perfect sons and daughters??  No imperfect being could be an actual son of GOD Almighty (and no being is the son or daughter of GOD Almighty, period!):

    [005:018] (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

    Again, please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1368.msg5203.html#msg5203.
      

    6-  Did you know that Elohim is Allah [1] [2].  The "im" in Hebrew is a majestic plural for GOD Almighty.  The root Word is "Eloh".  And the more original Jews such as Yemenites and others say Alohim or Alah-im.  And when you yourself pronounce it, you do naturally pronounce it with a double "l": Allah.  Jews do call Him: Allah-im.  Aramaic-speaking people also call GOD Almighty Allah.  See the following videos for Biblical references and proofs.  Also, pre-Islamic Biblical archeological findings have GOD Almighty as "Allah".  So the Original Holy Name for GOD Almighty is not Eloh.  It is Allah!  Eloh is a Hebrew dialect, which not all Hebrew speakers use anyway.  Allah had always been the Original and Universal GOD Almighty even before birth of Judaism, and the existence Hebrew.  And Hebrew is a developed language from Phoenician.  See the following links:

               
           (Click to play videos)

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew

      


    Send your comments.

    Back to Main Page.