Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Is Yahweh all powerful enough to forgive the original sin?

Literal Statement or Metaphorical?

Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.
(Psalm 115:3)

The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. (Psalm 135:6)


From the above passage it seems pretty much clear God has Power over All things, and does what he pleases, But should one take those passages as literal or metaphoric? You may ask why would we take this as metaphoric?? Well the simple answer is if The God of the bible is so Powerful and does whatever he wants, then Why Couldn't he abolish the original sin! Whereas making an innocent man suffer, torturing and humiliating him for a sin which has nothing to do with him! ? Does that even make sense.... Now many Christians will say NOO the PROPHERCY had to be fulfilled and the sinless had to suffer for all of us ? Well that nufflies the above passages that God does whatever he wants?? This tells us God has restrictions and is not able to forgive the original sins without making making another suffer... 

Ask any Christian was God able to forgive Adam and eves sins without a sacrifice (i.e blood) watch how they stutter to answer you back... It's a simple question which deserves a yes or no... 

Do you think your God who asks you to forgive anyone who does wrong to you, who persecutes you who does  injustice to you, wouldn't be able to forgive Adam and Eve for eating an Apple? THUS BIBLE GOD IS NOT ABLE TO EVEN FORGIVE THE ORGINAL SIN, JUST LIKE THAT HOW COULD HE EVEN DO WHAT HE WANTS!

Was Abraham TEMPTED or DECEIVED by Yahweh?

Was Abraham TEMPTED or DECEIVED by Yahweh?

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (Genesis 22:1)


We all know this verse, many times we even use it to show that Jesus is not God since he was tempted, now there's something very interesting about this verse which translators failed to interpret correctly possibly because it will expose Yahweh and show a very derogatory side of the God of isreal treating his prophets..

Lets find out what the word tempt in Hebrew really means! The word used for tempt or tempted in the Hebrew text used In Genesis 22:1 is  Nasha according to strongs Nasha means :

Strong's Hebrew: 5378. נָשָׁא (nasha) -- to beguile, deceive

Strong's Concordance
nasha: to beguile, deceive
Original Word: נָשָׁא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: nasha
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-shaw')
Short Definition: deceive

Word Origin
a prim. root
to beguile, deceive
NASB Translation
come deceitfully (1), deceive (8), deceived (3), deluded (1), utterly deceived (1).


There you have it Yahweh deceived Abraham, which brings us to the question then Jesus was tempted and not deceived and if Abraham was deceived not tempted then Jesus could not be the same as Abraham because he wasn't deceived ?

Good question only one problem Jesus was deceived have you forgotten when Satan took to the top of the mountain and showed him all the kingdoms for the earth and its splendour ? It was a deception it really wasn't there Satan showed Jesus by deceiving him, making him see something which wasn't there!

Thus Jesus was deceived and the same applies to both.... 

Do womens have semen?

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(Genesis 3:15)


Notice from the above verse HOW THE SEED OF THE WOMEN will crush the head of the serpent I.e (Satan) The word Seed in Hebrew ZERA that is Semen Scientifically we know women's don't have seeds it's the men's who have Seeds. 

Those who want to object and say no it means the seed of men inside the women, notice how the verse has already made a distinction between the seed of man and women. "and between thy seed and her seed;" two separate seeds for two separate genders. 

Second point according to Christians Mary was a virgin so she would not have the seed of a man, Rather she had a Miracle birth also ChristiNs brag  Genesis 3:15 is suppose to be a prophecy of Jesus which excludes any male seed intervention. 

Maybe our Christian friends can tell us how yahweh made such a scientific blunder not knowing women's don't have Semens !!!!!

How many ("MILLION") people left Egypt?

How many ("MILLION") people left Egypt?

The Israelites traveled from Rameses to Succoth, about 600,000 men's  on foot, besides their families. (Exodus 12:37)


Note from the verse 600,000 men's only not including there families.. Let's not Forget to mention live stock of animals, so what would the original amount of people add up to? Well we have a very interesting statement found in the Talmud:

the Talmud (Megillah 14a) says that there had been twice as many prophets as the number of people who left Egypt(2,600,000)


Ok now we have more on the plate, (2,600,000) Talmud is saying there were two million six hundred thousand people travelling with Moses during the Exodus?

Firstly we have no archeological findings of such a mass exodus leaving behind any traces, how did Moses even wake up 2 million people in the middle of the night? Travelling for days and weeks food, call of nature, animals needing attention.. Fatigue etc..... Can you manage 2 million + people with live stock 

Are you aware the population Mauritius (July 2014 est.) was 1,331,155 that's half of the exodus travellers ????????  Even Disney world can hold up to 100,000 people and we know how big that dream land is lol 

Makes you wonder was the bible written for idiots 


A Test for Christians who claim they know the Hebrew bible

A Test for Christians who claim they know the Hebrew bible 

Practically all Christians whether hardcore evangelist or roadside preachers claim to know the entire bible without doubt. They boast the have the Holy Ghost who guides them to understand the biblical texts?. Now it's easy to find out if they speak the truth all you have do is ask the same question regarding a specific bible passage preferably the Old Testament Hebrew bible to 10 different Christians and watch how you get mix answers all contradicting each other, neither will give you the same answer shows how this Holy Ghost they brag is guiding them. But we want to use a different  approach to show Christians they really don't have a clue about the Old Testament. 

Now Christians being Christians will show their high spirits when you ask them about the New Testament since they believe this is their new covenant which is God given to them and only them so asking them regarding the New Testament will only make them go into a trance as if they have the Holy Ghost speaking for them. But how about the Old Testament? We know the Old Testament known as the Tanach to the Jews is believed to be a revelations of books given to the Jews only no one but the Jews. So how so the Christians understand the Old Testament text? We know the Jews use rabbinic commentary  Interpret the Hebrew text. These are found in the Talmud/ Mishna a set of books written by sages and rabbis which is also known as the divine oral law second to the Torah...  Note ask any Jewish student regarding the Hebrew bible on specific verses he will Immediately use the oral law I.e Talmudic commentary to explain that verses or passage.. 

Here's our test to Christians on a few Hebrew bible passages let's see if they can explain them via BIBLE ONLY METHOD which they always use... Below you will find those passages which without the Talmud it's not possible to interpret. 

Also note the Talmud is the oral law and commentary for the Tanak according Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."



Gil Student writes: The existence of an oral law that was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai is a fundamental concept in Judaism.  However, the lack of a clear reference to an oral law in the biblical text has led some to deny its existence.  In response to these deniers, a literature has developed to try to prove the existence of an oral law.

Let's ask Christians if they can explain the passages below found in the Hebrew bible:

Theoretical Proofs

1. R. Yosef Albo [Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23] offers the following philosophical proof for the existence of an oral law.  R. Albo states that a perfect text must, by definition, be totally unambiguous and not require any additional information to be understood.  Since the Torah is called perfect [Psalms 19:8], the Torah must not have any ambiguities.  However, it does have ambiguities.  For example, the verse [Deut. 6:4] "Hear O Israel! The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one" is understood by Jews to imply absolute monotheism while it is understood by Christians to imply a trinity.  How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity?  Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect [cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71].  Therefore, R. Albo states, there must have been an oral tradition transmitted along with the written Torah.

2. R. Yehudah HaLevi [Kuzari, 3:35] states simply that it is impossible to read and understand the words of the bible without a tradition regarding the vowelization and punctuation of the words.  A simple reading of the text requires an oral tradition [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Commentary to Torat Cohanim, Baraita DeRabbi Yishmael sv. R. Yishmael].  Since the only existing tradition regarding the text includes a tradition about the concepts and laws, one who accepts the vowelization and punctuation must also accept the oral law.  It is inconsistent to accept the oral tradition only partially [cf. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz), Magen Avot Hachelek Haphilosophi, 2:3 p. 30b; R. Shlomo ben Shimon Duran (Rashbash), Milchemet Mitzvah, First Introduction].

Textual Proofs

3. R. HaLevi further asks what the Torah means when it says [Exodus 12:2] "This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months"?  To which months is this referring?  Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)?  Solar months or lunar months?  Without an oral tradition, there is no way to know to what this verse is referring [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary, Lev. 25:9; Rashbatz, ibid.  This, by the way, seems to alleviate the issue of counting January as the first month.  Since the verse is referring to lunar months, there is no prohibition to count January as the first solar month.].

4. Also, R. HaLevi asks, what does the Torah mean when it says that animals are permitted to be eaten after slaughter [Deut. 12:21]?  Does that mean any kind of killing or only through slitting the animal's neck? [Cf. Rashbatz, ibid.]

5. Furthermore, when the Torah [Lev. 3:17] says "It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood", what exactly is fat?  Are there different types of animal fat, some which are permitted and some which are forbidden?  How are these fats differentiated? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]

6. Also, when the Torah forbids certain birds [Lev. 11:13-19], does that mean that all other birds are permitted?  Or are there sign for birds like there are for animals [Lev. 11:2-8]?  [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]  How can anyone know whether biblical law permits or forbids eating ducks, geese, and turkeys [Kuzari, ibid]?

7. When the Torah [Ex. 16:29] says "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day" to what place is this referring?  Does it mean his home, his property if he has more than one home, his neighborhood, his city, or something else [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]?  In fact, Isaiah [66:23] says "It shall be that at every New Moon and on every sabbath all mankind will come to bow down before Me - said the L-rd" which implies that people will leave their homes on the sabbath and go to worship the L-rd [Rashbatz, ibid., 31a].  Evidently, Isaiah did not understand this verse in Exodus as the simple reading would have it.

8. What does the Torah mean when it [Ex. 20:10] forbids "work" on the sabbath?  What work is forbidden and what is not? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid., 30b; Rashbash, ibid.]  Without an oral explanation of the details of this forbidden work, it is impossible to know what the Torah means.

9. The sections of Exodus [ch. 21] and Deuteronomy [ch. 21-25] that deal with monetary and physical crimes do not seem to contain enough information to formulate a working legal system.  How can a court legislate with so few guidelines?  Certainly, for courts to function based on biblical law there must have been more information given in the form of an oral law [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

10. The laws of inheritance as stated in Numbers [27:8-11] cannot begin to address all of the many complicated situations that can and have arisen throughout the generations.  Without an oral law, how does a society apply the biblical inheritance laws [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]?

11. How does one fulfill the biblical commandments of circumcision [Gen. 17:10-14], fringes [Num. 15:38-39], and booths [Lev. 23:42]?  There is not enough detail in the biblical directive to know how to fulfill these commandments properly.  What are fringes?  What is a booth?  How much and where must be cut off in circumcision?  The biblical text is too silent to enable following these commandments unless there was an oral explanation [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

12. A baby must be circumcised on the eighth day [Gen. 17:12].  What if the eighth day falls out on the sabbath?  Can a circumcision take place on a sabbath or is that considered work?  The Passover sacrifice must be brought by every Jew [Ex. 12:47] on the day before Passover [Num. 9:5].  What happens if that day falls out on the sabbath?  Surely, slaughtering and offering a sacrifice is work.  Which takes precedence -- the sabbath or the paschal sacrifice?  There must be an oral law to explain this if these laws were intended to be put into practice [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

Implicit Proofs

13. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran points out that the Torah tells us that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges.  Jethro then told Moses [Ex. 18:20] "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow."  What does that mean?  If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges.  What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

14. R. Duran also notes the following biblical passage.

Deut. 17:8-11 
If a matter of judgement is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities -- you shall rise up and ascend to the place that the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose.  You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement.  You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that G-d will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you.  According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.
What possible knowledge is there that can be hidden?  If there is no oral law, then the only basis for judgement is in the Torah which is open for anyone to study.  Clearly, the entire need for the above process of going to the central court and following their ruling implies that there is an oral tradition which also serves as the basis for judgement [Rashbatz, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].
15. R. Yehudah HaLevi points out that Daniel [Dan. 6:11] risked his life to pray.  However, nowhere in the written Torah do we see a commandment to pray [Kuzari, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].  While there is argument regarding the source of the obligation to pray [cf. Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment 5; Nahmanides, ad. loc.] and whether there is an obligation to risk martyrdom for prayer [cf. R. Nissim ben Reuven, Commentary to Rif, Shabbat 22b sv. Umakshu] , the question remains -- how did Daniel know whether or not to offer his life for this commandment?  Without an oral law to explain the details of martyrdom, there is no way of determining when and where to become a martyr and when not to.

Proofs Through Contradiction

16. R. Duran notes that after King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64].  How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices?  From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?  It certainly is nowhere in the written law [Rashbatz, ibid.].

17.  Similarly, R. Duran points out that Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38].  However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14].  From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

18. Consider the following passage.

Jeremiah 26:20-21 
There was also a man prophesying in the name of the L-rd, Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, who prophesied against this city and this land the same things as Jeremiah.  King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard about his address, and the king wanted to put him to death.  Uriah heard of this and fled in fear, and came to Egypt.
Uriah was scared for his life so he fled to Egypt.  However, the Torah says in three separate places [Ex. 14:13; Deut. 17:16, 28:68] that it is forbidden for a Jew to return to Egypt.  How did Uriah know that his action was permitted?  Even to save his life, how did he know that it is permissible to violate a biblical commandment to save his life if not through an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

19. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity.  He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?...  If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?"  The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah.  How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

Why Did G-d Give An Oral Torah?

Now that it has been established that there is an oral tradition regarding the law, the question remains why G-d intentionally gave the Torah in two parts -- a written part and an oral part.

20. As we said above (1), any written book is subject to ambiguity [Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71].  Since that is the case, had G-d only given us a written Torah, its interpretation would have been debated due to vagueness.  Therefore, G-d also gave a tradition that would be taught orally from teacher to student so that the teacher could clarify any ambiguities [Rashi, Eiruvin, 21b sv. Veyoter; R. Yosef  Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23].  R. Yair Bachrach [Responsa Chavat Yair, 192] and R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg [Haketav Vehakabalah, vol. 1 p. viii] dispute this argument and claim that since G-d is omnipotent, He could have created a totally unambiguous book.  However, it seems to this author that the original argument was assuming that any written book is, by definition, ambiguous.  It is a logical impossibility to have a completely unambiguous book.  In fact, the example that R. Bachrach offers of an unambiguous book is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah which, despite its clarity and brilliance, has dozens if not hundreds of commentaries that try to clarify its ambiguities.

21. It is also suggested that the entire corpus of law that governs every possible case that could arise would be endless and would certainly not fit in one or even five books.  The Talmud itself has over 2,700 double-sided pages.  To put all of this detail into the bible would have made it a very cumbersome book that, inevitably, would have left out details that cover a future case [Sefer HaIkkarim, ibid.; R. Yehudah Loewe, Gur Aryeh, Ex. 34:27]. 


The passages above are sufficient to mute any Christian who claims to know the Hebrew bible without using any oral law commentary. Try it out!!!!!

Adam and his Desires for animals according to Jewish Commentators !

Why don't Christians swallow what Jewish  commentators say.... Since they love running to TAFSIR! -------------
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place. (Genesis 2:21)------------
Rashis commentary.....and he slept, and He took: So that he should not see the piece of flesh from which she was created, lest she be repulsive to him (Sanhedrin 39)
 so adam would of been disgusted to see his wife? Yet below we read this same man committed beastly with all animals ( how sick)

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." (Genesis 2:23)


Commentary from talmud 

R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?13  This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve. (Yebamoth 63a)

(Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.)

Can you Imagine the Torah scholars learned Jewish rabbis are saying that Adam had sexual intercourse with animals? How sick !!

Jesus prophesied the coming of the Paraclete

Jesus prophesied the coming of the Paraclete

The Qur’an says: “And remember when Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Sent One of God to you; I confirm the Torah that is before me, and I give glad tidings of (another) Sent One to come after me whose title shall be ‘the most illustrious’ (Ahmad [أحمد])” (Q 61:6). When Muslim polemicists/biblicists or classical exegetes look to the Christian writings to confirm this ayah (61:6), they never look further than the Johannine Paraclete (ὁ παράκλητος) passages (John 14-16). The Pshitta, unfortunately, does not provide us with an Aramaic/Syriac translation of the original Greek παράκλητος, but rather transliterates the Greek as “Paraqlata.” Equally unfortunate is that Al-Tayyib also rendered the Syriac term, whatever it was, into the transliterated “al-Fariqlit” (الفارقليط). However John Joseph identifies the Aramaic of Paraclete as Mnahmana, meaning “compassionate,” and Mrahmana (modern Aramaic; related to the Arabic rahman). The word Mnahmana appears to be a intensified participle due to the mem-prefix and nun-suffix, while the triliteral root is na-ha-ma. According to the BDB, Syriac does not contain the triliteral root ha-ma-da, from which Ahmad is derived. If it had, then the Piel (fa’ala) participle would have been something close to Mahmada or Mhamdana, which almost sounds like a morph of Muhammad and Ahmad. Payne-Smith gives the Syriac mnahmana (sp. in מנחמנא Hebrew; Arab. منحمنى) as a derivative of the root na-ha-ma, meaning “to raise to  life.” Perhaps the difference between Mnahmana and Mhamdana is due to what Moloney and Kelly call “popular etymology.” This is how Moloney explains the difference between the words Shiluakh and Siloam in his commentary of John 9; Jesus told the blind man to wash in the pool of Siloam (Σιλωάμ), “which means ‘Sent’” (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος [John 9:7.5]); the Hebrew Shiluakh (root: shin-lamed-chet) became the Syriac Siloam (sin-lamed-mem) and these words only have one root letter in common: the penultimate radical lamed. Another example could be the Hebrew Bacca to the Arabic Mecca. The point is, the lack of the chamad (ha-ma-da) Hebrew root in Syriac may be due to the fact that it fell out of use, or was subsumed by the similar sounding nacham (na-ha-ma), in which case, Mnahmana and Mhamdana would be equivalent in meaning, or to put it in Johannine terms, Mnahmana, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Mhamdana. It is clear, however, that  ὁ παράκλητος is meant as a title rather than as a proper name, thus the Syriac Mnahmana as an equivalent to Ahmad is actually more appropriate than Mhamdana, since the former is in fact an adjectival title of the Prophet Muhammad meaning “the most praised, illuistrious, lauded,” just as “the Christ” is a title of Jesus. Interestingly, the Qur’an calls both Jesus and Muhammad  “rahmah” (رحمة), a designation closely related to the modern Aramaic for Paraclete Mrahmana, thus possibly explaining the Johannine phrase “another Paraclete” (John 14:16). Mnahmana, Mrahmana, and Ahmad all share two root letters (chet [ha] and mem [mim]) which is indicative of their possibly common archaic origin. 
F.C. Burkitt suggests that due to his contacts with monks at St. Catherine’s monastery, Muslim historiographer Ibn Hisham may have had access to a Syriac manuscript of John’s Gospel (Diatessaron?) from which he translated the following from John 15:23-27:

(23) He who hates me hated the Lord (Arrab). (24) and if I had not done in their presence works none before me did, they would not have had sin. But from now they were getting the better of me and of my Lord. (25) But the word which is written in the Law (Annamus) must be fulfilled: “They hated me gratuitously.” (26) So if Almunhamanna had come, him whom Allah will send you from the Lord (and) Spirit of Justice (truth) (qist) or Holiness (quds): he is that which comes forth from the Lord - he would be a witness to me: (27) and you too because of old you were with me. I have told you about this that you might not be made to stumble.

The Paraclete seems to evolve anthropomorphically from a purely spiritual and immortal indwelling entity, “the Holy Spirit,” in John 14, to a more human messenger who “speaks” only what he “hears” and teaches spiritual truths, “the Spirit of Truth,” in John 16. Both are true, as this is yet another example of the Johannine Gospel’s multi-layered aspect. I believe that the Paraclete is the holy spirit of prophecy that inspires men to preserve (and restore) the message of Christ. Christ himself is called a “paraclete”(παράκλητος) in 1 John 2:1 because he is a guided and sanctified prophet who speaks through the Spirit and acts as mediator between God and man. 1 John 4:1 makes it clear that the spirits of prophets must be “tested” in order to determine whether they can be true speakers of the Paraclete (as opposed to speakers of the spirit of the anti-Christ): “Beloved, do not believe in every spirit, but test the spirits (πνεύματα) to determine if they are from God, for many false-prophets (ψευδοπροφῆται) have gone out into the world.” Thus in Johannine nomenclature, “true prophets” and “true spirits” are interchangeable; thus “the Spirit of Truth” can be described as “the Prophet of Truth.” After the widespread interpretive corruption of the Gospel (after “the loss” [منقذا بعد الضياع]), the great restorer of the Gospel, Muhammad, spoke through the agency of the Paraclete and gave us the Qur’an, guidance “unto all truth” about Jesus Christ: “Say: The Holy Spirit revealed it (the Qur’anic message) from your Lord in order to solidify those who have believed, as a guidance and evangelon (Gospel) for the true submitters  (قُلۡ نَزَّلَهُ ۥ رُوحُ ٱلۡقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِٱلۡحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَهُدً۬ى وَبُشۡرَىٰ لِلۡمُسۡلِمِينَ). The synonymity of “spirit” and “prophet” in John is also found in the Qur’an which refers to the “Messenger after Jesus” as the Ahmad (Mnahmana), because in addition to the interesting etymological correspondences between the Syriac Mnahmana and Ahmad/Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam is the “Spirit (Prophet) of Truth” par excellance, as he is the greatest restorer of the authentic message of Jesus Christ whose core message will remain uncorrupted until the end of time - “he will remain with you forever” (John 14:15). Christian critics of “the Paraclete as Ahmad,” often insist that the descriptions of the Paraclete are only of the Holy Spirit, not a human messenger. Even The Study Qur’an finds the idea of Ahmad being the Paraclete “complicated” by further descriptions of the latter in the Johannine text. However this was not how the Johannine community itself understood the title of Paraclete, as demonstrated above. Additionally, this criticism is ignorant of the fact that according to Christian history, several charismatic Christian “prophets” and preachers, such as Montanus of Phrygia (d. circa late 2nd c. CE) and his female colleagues Prisca and Priscilla, claimed to be the Paraclete, or rather inspired by the Paraclete. Of course Catholic exegetes also confess to an apparent contradiction in the Paraclete passages, if they are to understand the Paraclete as the third person of the Trinity; the Holy Spirit was certainly with Christ during his ministry as well as with Zachariah and John the Baptist for that matter, yet Jesus clearly says that the Paraclete will come after his departure (“for if I do not go, the Helper will not come to you” [John 16:7.5]). If Catholic exegetes can resolve this apparent contradiction by appealing to the enigmatic language of “pre-eternal procession” and “economical sending,” then my contention about the Paraclete as the holy spirit of prophecy finding its greatest manifestation in Muhammad, whose message restored Nazarene Jamsonian/”proto-Johannine” Christology and whose very title Ahmad is etymologically related to “the Paraclete,” is certainly not far-fetched.

Written by Ali Atai 

What is the Punishment for Stealing in the Bible?

What is the punishment for stealing?

We read in the bible specifically the Tanach ( Old Testament ) where Yahweh gives a list of laws/Commandments which must be obeyed.. One of the Commands given by Yahweh is not to steal...


You shall not steal.
(Exodus 20:15)

"'Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another.
(Leviticus 19:11)


From the above it's pretty clear one should not steal  a beautiful message no one can disagree with right? Christians make a big fuss about Islamic ruling on stealing the accused hands has to be chopped off?? Well firsty that's not the only ruling based on theft or stealing there are certain conditions that have to be met before applying such laws But one has to QUESTION WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR STEALING ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?

If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
(Exodus 22:2 KJV)

This is supported by the talmud with more elaborated statements:


Talmudic Code Law for Crimes: Theft (6-12, 21-25)

[6] If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

[8] If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

[14] If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

[21] If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.


So we take it from the bible and oral law stealing is offence which deserves capital punishment.. Not cutting the hands ?? Bible tells us if the thief is caught & you happen to kill him, then you haven't done anything wrong? Talmud is so explicit it sanctions capital punishment! What's worse killing or cutting hands?? 

Next time Christians brag sharia law say cut the hands of thiefs, tell them the bible and oral law says explicitly kill the thief!!!!

Serpant or Satan?

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the...