Sunday, 26 February 2017

Man takes precedence over his Wife!

To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)


Notice from the above text how Yahweh punished Eve for eating the fruit. Comparing her punishment with Adam, it seems like Yahweh was lenient towards Man and extremely harsh towards Women. Now taking a closer look at the texts reveals a lot take for instance women will bear labour pain!. How could a loving caring God make every single women on earth suffer with such a traumatic pain for the error of one person?. 

Here's the interesting part a women's husband will be her desire and he will rule over her?. Jewish commentator rashis gives us a good explanation of what that means:

Rashis commentary :

And to your husband will be your desire: for intimacy, but, nevertheless, you will not have the audacity to demand it of him with your mouth, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him and not from you. — [from Eruv. ad loc.]

Classical commentator rashis explains this verse as women's have no right  over their  husband they can't even demand intimacy even if they had the urge to. The key point to note is MAN WILL RULE OVER HIS WIFE!. This is such a strong  statement  giving Man all power to dominate over his wife. What does it mean by Rule over you?.

If you search the word Rule in any english dictionary you'll find its  typically means as:("exercise ultimate power or authority over an area and its people. control of or dominion over an area or people.) in other words the husband is the sole ruler, King, authority, judge dominator over his wife. Which means the husband does what he likes when he likes, taking precedence and his wife cannot do anything about it other than accepting his decision. 

Here's the problem Christians face if the husband is the master over his wife which makes her no less then a servant the  what prevents him from beating her!. There is absolute no prohibition in the bible regarding wife beating.? Think about it if the husband I'd the women's desire and he shall rule over her, it's natural he can beat her if she displeases him. If the bible allows the master to beat his servant wether man or women (Exodus 21:20) what could possible prevent the husband from beating his wife since he is her Master and rules over her!.

Let's break this down :

Women desire will be her husband.

Her husband will rule over her.

Women has no say no can she demand anything from her husband.

Her husband had all power and authority to do what he likes.

Her husband can beat her as he is her sole ruler 

The bible does not prohibit wife beating.

Let the bible speak!.

Friday, 24 February 2017

Peaceful or violent ?

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)


The above passage raises a couple of serious problems for Christians. Notice how the texts read during the second coming of Jesus he will have alongside with him powerful Angels who will punish those who do not obey the gospel of Jesus!. Think about this for a moment, Christians tell us Jesus is a loving peaceful man who never hurt a fly. Yet this passage portrays a very evil dangerous figure no less than Hitler who was trying to dominate the world.

One of the other problem found in this passage is the short time span? What don't mean by that Let me elaborate. According to the passage when Jesus arrives with his angels and finds  anyone who is not obeying him should be destroyed seems very unfair, why because from a historical point the story of Jesus  did not reach each and every person. Which means hundreds and thousands were unaware of Jesus and his gospel. If that's the case and Jesus was supposed have arrived those innocent people who knew him not would have been destroyed!. Paul himself wrote in Thessalonians that he is expecting Jesus anytime which says a lot if Paul was living during the 1st century. There are other passages found in the bible which reads that the second coming of Jesus will be a very violent one.

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,.....
      (Philippians 2:10-11)

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)

I want to point out that the above passage says anyone who doesn't obey the gospel of Jesus will be destroyed. You can say Luke 19:27 is a parable which is true, but note this is talking of Jesus's second coming

Now coming back to The Initial passage 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 if Christians were going to apply this standard of Muslims them we will pass with flying colours. How did I come to this concludes well Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus Pbuh, we do not believe In the gospels (plural) rather the singular Gospel which was originally given to Jesus Pbuh. And in the Gospel of Jesus we find the true message where Jesus Pbuh himself said to worship Allah Swt the true God and not to associate partners with him if anyone does then paradise will be forbidden for him. Every Muslim on the planet accept and obey such command. 

However on the other hand Christians believe in what Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John said they don't have the gospel of Jesus. This is a fact which Christians admit to. So in short Jesus of the bible returns he will bring Angels and kill whosoever doesn't obey him. This also means the freedom of religion will be taken away.

Ask yourself this question is Jesus of the bible loving and peaceful or violent taking away all religious freedom killing innocent people!

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

No blasphemy was committed!

(Talmud Sanhedrin 55b)

Here's the problem nowhere in the entire New Testament did Jesus ever utter the word Yahweh nor was the name Yahweh used by any of his disciples ?? So how could Jesus have been condemned as a blasphemer when he never uttered the name?

Neither did Jesus ever call himself God explicitly, which again could not condemn him as a blasphemer? Just for the record when Jesus supposed to have said :

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? ( John 14:9)

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. This  alleged statement was specifically said to his disciple not to the Jewish rabbis, scribe Pharisees. Since the Jews were not present there this cannot apply as blasphemy as no Jews heard this statement to use it against him. Now coming to the statement such as :

Before Abraham was i am & I and the father are one. A closer inspection of these two alleged sayings nullify any idea of Jesus calling himself God or omitting blasphemy:

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)


Notice from the above text, once read from context we find that the jews and jesus were having a face to face dialogue. Jesus spoke about Abraham that he was waiting to see his days..

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” (v56)

Yet the jews answered back :

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)

Now why did the jews say YOU ARE NOT FIFTY YEARS OLD? AND YOU HAVE SEEN ABRAHAM?? What difference would it make if jesus was 500 years old since the time gap between Abraham and Jesus would have been 4000 years...

Unless they were speaking of a man who lived during the time of Jesus called Abraham which would make more sense saying your not fifty and you know Abraham.

Its like saying your not 60 years old how can you say you saw JFK ( ex president) now the question is if jesus was meant to declare his divinity then why didnt he say before Adam was Iam?? Thats if we take the Iam as God even though thats not what it means! Why stop at Abraham how about Noah do you see the problem this causes for christians

This tells us according to john there must of been a man during the first century called Abraham whom the jews were taking as a pious man

Here's another problem 

John 8:57

TEXT: "and have you seen Abraham?"
EVIDENCE: p66 Sc A B C D K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi ff13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h,pal) most cop(north)

NOTES: "and has Abraham seen you?"
EVIDENCE: p75 S* 0124 syr(s) one cop(north) cop(south)

COMMENTS: A few copyists apparently changed the Jews' question to be more like Jesus' statement in verse 56 ("he would see my day; and he saw [it]").
The Textual Variant changes the entire message  of the IAM saying wouldn't you say


Jesus did not call himself God John 10:30 nor did he blaspheme 

I and my father are one ( John 10:30) a typical answer found by every Christian evangelist, if only they read the entire context they could spare themselves from such embarrassment . Not only did Jesus call the Jews god's (John 10:34) he also proved them wrong by calling himself a son of god negating such statements by the Jews !

Jesus encounters the Jews 

The Jews ask who he is 

Jesus tells them he's doing his father job

Jews still were unsure 

Jesus tells them he and the father are one

Jews pick up stones to stone him

Jesus challenges them why are they stoning him

Jews reply Jesus he blaspheming calling himself God

do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:36)

Jesus is confirming he is not God rather a son of God, in Jewish understanding this means a Servant of God. also note psalm 82:6 ye are gods meaning judges, the John 10:30 could mean the Jews didn't accept Jesus as a judge like themselves! Again John 10:30 doesn't qualify Jesus as God.

The question is why was is charged for blasphemy when he never committed such an act?

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

A short review of Mr. Chris claus & Br. Aqil's debate

The countless amount of red herrings committed by Mr. Chris Claus during his debate with  Br. Aqil really took the biscuit. The entire debate can be found on this page courtesy of MAP (Muslim Apologetics Podcast). During the debate Br. Aqil Produced many evidences and proofs  from the bible where Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is Prophecised.  This obviously was too much for Mr. Chris Claus to handle, Rather then making a consistent response for the evidences produced Mr. Chris went off topic & misquoted his own bible. I urge everyone to watch this debate carefully and see it for yourself on who was on and off topic.

Now I would like to also respond to a few points which Mr. Chris made during his debate. I will show you how Mr. Chris was very inconsistent and unaware how his own comments backfired on him. Here are some of the claims made by Mr. Chris :

Mr. Chris said one of the standards of prophethood according to the Torah is God would speak to his prophet face to face like he spoke to Moses. He quoted Deuteronomy 34 and Numbers 12. Basing his argument on those passages  Mr. Chris thought he could make a solid point. Unfortunately Mr. Chris's bold attempt only backfires on him. If one the standards of being a True Prophet is God speaking to them face to face then his saviôur Jesus has failed that standard without a doubt. There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament which reads Yahweh and Jesus had a direct one to one conversation like Moses did not a single verse Everytime Jesus spoke to Yahweh he got no reply!. How ironic Mr. Chris was basing his argument on such a high standard which his own saviôur failed upon.

Chris  goes on by citing verses from the Quran and adds his own commentary he first cited Quran Chapter 96

 Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- (Surah 96:1) 

And then Quran Chapter 28

46. Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee: in order that they may receive admonition.47. If (We had) not (sent thee to the Quraish),- in case a calamity should seize them for (the deeds) that their hands have sent forth, they might say: "Our Lord! why didst Thou not sent us an apostle? We should then have followed Thy Signs and been amongst those who believe!"48. But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!"49. Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are (Surah 28:46-49)

Had Chris read the entire context then he wouldn't of cherry picked a single verse giving his own commentary which earlier he himself was speaking against cherry picking?. Notice from the context how the story of Moses Pbuh is mentioned which the disbelievers used as an objection here's an actual commentary of  verse 48 which Chris was speaking about.   

That is, “Why has not Muhammad (peace be upon him) been given all those miracles which had been given to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him)? He also should have shown us the miracle of the staff; his hand also should have shone like the sun; his deniers also should have been struck with storms and plagues from the earth and heaven; and he also should have brought them commandments written on stone tablets.” 
 This is a reply to their objection, which implies: “The disbelievers of Makkah had not believed in Moses (peace be upon him) either, nor followed his teachings. Therefore they had no right to say: Why has the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) not been given the same miracles that were given to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him)?” In (Surah Saba: Ayat 31), this saying of the disbelievers of Makkah has been related: “We shall never believe in this Quran, nor in any other Book which came before it.” ( Islamic studies Tafheem commentary Surah 28:48)

It's pretty obvious that Mr. Chris hasn't read the Quran with full attention nor was he aware of this verse which clearly and explicitly destroys his entire baseless argument. Just to add Jesus was asked by the Jews to show signs to prove he was a true prophet which he eventually said no sign shall be given? 

It is not given to any human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation, or from behind a veil, or that a messenger (an angel) be sent to him who reveals to him by Allah's leave whatever He wishes. He is All-High, Most Wise. (Surah 42:51)

Notice how the above verse from the Quran tells us the different methods of revelations and one of them is sending a Messenger (an Angel) to bring revelations. And this is spoken by Allah Swt for us Muslims the words of Allah is sufficient. What the Torah says does not change what we believe in and for the record there is not mention in the Torah where an Angel cannot bring revelation to a Prophet of God, Again Mr Chris shows no consistency.

Let's move on Mr. Chris now brings up the idea that Jews and  Christians are the sons of God and and Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was against this idea of the Jews and Christians  which obviously goes against the teaching of the Torah Deuteronomy 14:1 - 32:6-20. He also quoted from the Quran Surah 19 and Surah 5 which refutes this ill ideology that God has children's (sons) the two Surah that Mr. Chris used in support for his  argument actually goes against it and completely destroys them 

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, 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 Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"  (Surah 5:18)

Notice how Allah Swt is saying if the Jews and Christians really were the sons of God why do they get punished for their sins? Would a father punish his children's for sins? The verse goes on to say they are men's I.e mortal people who can not be part of God in any way. And to Allah Swt belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. It's more acceptable to say we humans are the servants of Allah Swt as he Allah Swt created us. And this is found in Surah 19.

90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious. 92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 93. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to ((Allah)) Most Gracious as a servant. (Surah 19:90-93)

Note A Master would be able to Save and punish  his servant as he pleases he has no restrictions and a master is not ordered nor emotionally give be in. The next point I want to address is when Chris was trying to interpret Deuteronomy 33 

And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)

It's fascinating how Mr. Chris lacks on simple biblical exegesis. He completely misquoted the verse of Deuteronomy adding a big here and a big there which his own bible forbids!. He said the Lord came from  Sinai is speaking of God I.e Yahweh is the figure being spoken of ? What does The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them really mean? Let's find out from biblical commentaries :

2-4. The Lord came—Under a beautiful metaphor, borrowed from the dawn and progressive splendor of the sun, the Majesty of God is sublimely described as a divine light which appeared in Sinai and scattered its beams on all the adjoining region in directing Israel's march to Canaan. 

The appearance of God on Sinai is described as a sunrise. His light rose from Sinai, and the tops of the hills of Seir caught its rays. The full blaze of light shone on Paran. (Comp. Psalm 1:2 : “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God  hath shined.”)

2The LordJehovah; as frequently, the Divine Name opens the poem; see on Deuteronomy 1:6.

Sinai] See Deuteronomy 1:2Deuteronomy 1:6, on Ḥoreb, and on the view that the mountain lay in Se‘îr cp. Jdg 5:4.

rose] Like the sun: rays, or beams, forth.

Benson commentary 

 Rose up from Seir — Namely, when, upon the removal of the cloud of glory, they marched from the neighbourhood of Idumea, in which is mount Seir. The original word signifies that his presence rose upon them like the sun from the mount, (Malachi 4:2,) 

Verse 2. - And he said. Here begin the words of Moses. He commences by depicting the majesty of Jehovah as he appeared to Israel when he came to make the covenant with them and give them his Law. The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them, etc. Seir is the mountain land of Edom to the cast of Sinai. Mount Paran is probably the range of lofty hills which form the southern boundary of the Promised Land to the north of the desert of Et-Tih. These places are not mentioned as scenes of different manifestations of the Divine glory, but as indicating the extent to which the one manifestation given at Sinai reached. The light of the Divine glory that rested on Sinai was reflected also from the mountains of Seir and Paran

The above commenters have debunked Chris's claims that Yahweh the figure spoken of was actually there? No it's referring to a divine glory like the sun being present there. He also goes on to say the Hebrew word used in the verse for 10,000 doesn't actually mean that it only means multitude? But does it really let's find out. The Hebrew word used is (רְבָבָה) rebabah which does mean 10,000 there are many many verses which uses the same Hebrew word saying 10,000. Take for example the verse below and other references alongside.

Five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue ten thousand (רְבָבָה rebabah), and your enemies will fall by the sword before you. (Leviticus 26:8)

Genesis 24:60, Deuteronomy 32:30, Deuteronomy 33:17, 1. Samuel 18:7-8, 1 Samuel 29:5, psalm 3:6, psalm 91:7, Micah 6:7, Songs of Solomon 5:10 etc etc...  Another false claim made by Chris debunked.. 

Another random subject Mr. Chris jumped on to was Isaiah 9:6 where he used it as a prophecy referring it to Jesus as he was specifically focusing on the Hebrew word el gabbor mighty god? Let's examine his claim and falsify it using his own bible. 

Firstly accords to Jewish scholars Isaiah 9:6 is not referring to Jesus at all rather it's referring to King Hezekiah as Hezekiah means mighty god, which is only a name given to him not that he really is god. The bible is full of people and objects who bear the name of God below is a few example.

country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. (1 Samuels 1:1)
Hebrew ( אֱלִיה֛וּא) ’ĕ-lî-hū  means my god is he!, Does that make Elihu a god?

Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the LORD Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the LORD. (1 Samuel 1:3)
Hebrew ( עֵלִ֗י) Eli means my god Does that make Eli a god?

He went to his father's home in Ophrah and on one stone murdered his seventy brothers, the sons of Jerub-Baal. But Jotham, the youngest son of Jerub-Baal, escaped by hiding. (Judges 9:5)
Hebrew (יוֹתָ֧ם) yō-w-ṯām jotham means the perfect god Is jotham a perfect god??

There he set up an altar and called it El Elohe Israel. (Genesis 33:20)
Hebrew (אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֵ֖ל) the god, is the altar god?

Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. (Exodus 17:15)
Hebrew ( נִסִּֽי׃ יְהוָ֥ה) yahwh is the banner Is god the banner of the alter?

The above textual proofs from the very bible Chris use's is sufficient to prove Isaiah 9:6 
 mighty god carries no strength in proving Jesus was god or Prophesied. Chris further went on to say that the book of Isaiah was not good enough to use as prophetic evidence by brother 
 as Isaiah does not qualify as one of the book for the Torah I.e the law and that's according to Chris's standard. Chris was saying show me one credible scholars evidence who takes Isaiah as one of the books of the law?. This probably was one of the biggest bad move Chris made as his very own 
 whom he was preaching about exposed him. Brother 
 not only refuted him on this but literally made him feel embarrassed by showing how Jesus himself referred to psalm as the law John 10:34- John 15:25 etc...

How about when Jesus went to the synagogue and read out from the scroll of Isaiah and the indeed this prophecy has been fulfilled?. He was using Isaiah's scriptures to prove his prophet hood why didn't he use the Torah why use Isaiah?. Did he not say in Luke 24 that everything about him was mentioned by Moses?. And this leads to another point raised by Chris He quotes 1 John 2

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

According to Mr. Christ whoever rejects Jesus then he is the Antichrist. And he implied this towards the Prophet of Islam Pb uh. Here's the dilemma Chris falls into if he thinks anyone who denies Jesus then is he the anti Christ. Jesus was never mentioned by Moses by name. nor did Moses accept Jesus as Christ, using your criteria of 1 john 2:22 doesn't this show that Moses of the bible was the anti Christ. Now If you disagree please show us where Jesus was called the messiah by name in the Torah. Luke 24:44 Jesus even said Moses spoke everything about him, so where do we find the explicit mention of Jesus by name in the Torah by Moses.

He also shared the most used statement by every Christians preacher on the planet. I am the way life and truth. Chris thinks that Jesus of the bible was the only man on earth who is the way to salvation, wrong Chris as Muslims we believe each and every Prophets Pbut are the way and truth, here is what the Quran says about Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. 

The Way Truth and Life yes Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is Mentioned with such Qualities :

He is on the straight path the Right Way

And indeed, (O Muhammad), you guide to a straight path. (Ash-Shura 42:52)

Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." ( surah 7:58)

Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not. (Surah 45:18)

( also quote Surah 36:3-4)


He is Sadiq (Truthful) 

And when the believers saw the clans, they said: This is what Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger promised us, and Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger are true, and it only added to their faith and submission (to Allah). (33:22)

He brought the truth

And say: The truth has come and the falsehood has vanished away. Undoubtedly, the falsehood is ever bound to vanish. (17:81)

And he who has come with the truth and he who accepts it as the truth, such are those that guard (against evil). (39:33)


He calls you to that which gives you life

O you who believe! Answer (the call of) Allah and the (Prophetic) Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life, and know that Allah comes between the man and his own heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. (8:24)

Note I also have a paper to refute Jesus of the bible is the only way and Truth here's the

Those were a few points I wanted to address showing how inconsistent Mr. Chris was once again I urge everyone to watch the debate and then decided for yourself..

Friday, 17 February 2017

Son of Baal and sons of Zeus !

James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means "sons of thunder"), (Mark 3:17)


Why was James and John called SONS OF THUNDER? Luke tells us when the people of Samaritan did not welcome Jesus, this is what James and John said 

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
(Luke 9:54)

Notice how James and John said to Jesus does  he want them to Command fire to come down from the heaven!. This is a very powerful statement made by his disciples which Jesus himself could not do. The only person who actually did this physically was Elijah.

Elijah replied to the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. 
(2 Kings 1:10)

It's amazing how the disciples felt offended because Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans, they were willing to destroy and entire village summoning fire from the heavens!. Even though Jesus had rebuked them the fact they made that attempt to try and wipe them off says a lot about making mockery or disrespecting their master.

This obviously game them the title as the SONS OF THUNDER!. What's worse Jesus just made his disciples into demigods. The ancient Greeks believed Zeus to be the god of Thunder!.

Zeus /ˈzʲuːs/ (Ancient Greek: Ζεύς, Zeús, [zdeǔ̯s]; Modern Greek: Δίας, Días [ˈð]) was the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who ruled as king of the godsof Mount Olympus. His name is cognate with the first element of his Roman equivalent Jupiter.

This gets even worse as from my previous paper  I've shown how Yahweh is a pagan god Baal, and if his disciples were the son of the thunder god Zeus what does that tell you? Paganism at its best!!!!

Thursday, 16 February 2017

Paul and his 500 unknown witnesses ?

and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 
(1 Corinthians 15:5-8)

It's funny how Paul never mentioned Mary Magdalene at all how comes? How absurd that Paul gave a random number of 500, yet gave no more information about them?. Why did Paul omit Mary Magdalene since the very first person according to the gospels was Mary Magdalene. Doesn't this tell us that Paul was not really aware of the so called resurrection event!. Paul even goes as far as saying :

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Notice how Paul said anyone who preaches a different gospel then what he has then let them be cursed. Point one is that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John decades later preached a different gospel since not a single quotations Paul made about Jesus is found in any of the gospels. Point two the four gospels explicitly mention Mary Magdalene as a disciple of Jesus and allegedly for the first to meet Jesus after the so called resurrection event, which Paul never made any mention of. Clearly that a problem for Christians to solve.

The other problem we have with Paul's exaggerated number is that Peter statement contradicts with it.

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) (Acts 1:15)

The above tells us Peter spoke to about 120 people not 500. Nor does the gospels speak of Jesus allegedly met with 500 people? Also one has to question why did Paul say 500 and did he expect to get caught out?. And the answer is no why because of many reasons below is a list of few reason why Paul could have lied written by Bob Seidensticker he makes some extremely valid point why the whole appearance to  500 witnesses  cannot be accepted.

Let’s think this through. Imagine that we’re in that church in Corinth and we have just received Paul’s letter.

1. What does “appeared” mean? Jesus “appeared” to Paul as a vision (Acts 9:3–9), but Paul uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to Paul. Could Paul think that the appearance to everyone was as a vision?

2. Who are these 500 eyewitnesses? Names and addresses, please? To find out, someone would need to send a letter back to Paul, at that moment 200 miles across the Aegean Sea in Ephesus. If a church member had the money, time, and guts to write this letter, why would Paul have deigned to reply?
Even if Paul had witnessed Jesus in front of the 500 (he hadn’t), it’s possible he wouldn’t have known a single person in that crowd. And even if Paul thought the number were accurate, “500 eyewitnesses” might be all he had heard, and he wouldn’t have been able to back it up with any evidence.

3. How many will still be around? Paul wrote this epistle in about 55CE about a supposed event that occurred over 20 years earlier. Of the 500 eyewitnesses, how many are still alive and still in Jerusalem, ready to be questioned?

4. Who could make this trip? Jerusalem is 800 miles away, and getting there would involve a long, dangerous, and expensive trip.

5. How many candidates for this trip? Paul had only started the church in Corinth a couple of years earlier. There would probably have been less than 100 members.* Would even one have the means and motivation to make the big trip to Jerusalem?

6. Who would challenge Paul? If the founder of the church says something, who’s likely to question it? There might well have been people who were unimpressed by Paul’s message, but these would never have joined the church. Others within the church might have become disappointed and left. Even if these people had wanted to embarrass Paul, they wouldn’t have been in the church community to learn of the claim.

7. What did the eyewitnesses actually see? Let’s imagine that we have the money and daring to make the trip, we have a plan for whom to interview in Jerusalem, and we’re rebellious enough to spit in the face of our church’s founder to see if he’s a liar.
After many adventures, we reach Jerusalem. What will the eyewitnesses say? At best they’ll say that, over 20 years ago, they saw a man. Big deal—that’s uninteresting unless they saw him dead before. Had they been close enough to the movement to be certain that they recognized Jesus? Human memory is notoriously inaccurate. There’s a big difference between the certainty one has in a memory and its accuracy—these don’t always go together.

8. So what? Suppose all these unlikely things happen: we make the long trip, we search for eyewitnesses, and we conclude that Paul’s story is nonsense. If we successfully make the long trip back, what difference will this make? Even if we had the guts to tell everyone that Paul’s story was wrong, so what? Who would believe us over the church’s founder? We’d be labeled as bad apples, we’d be expelled from the church, the church would proceed as before, and Paul’s letter would still be copied through the centuries for us to read today!

9. Why is this even compelling evidence? No gospel uses this anecdote as evidence. For whatever reason—that they’d never heard it or that they had and felt that it was uninteresting—the gospels argue that this is unconvincing evidence. Why should we think otherwise?

The above list made by Bob Seidensticker completely destroyed Pauls Lies to Corinthians.


We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!

Bible confirms this "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.   (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

(Note the Hebrew text uses the word Torah) so the text should says " How can you say we are Wise and have the Torah of the Lord with us when the scribes have altered it and made it into a lie!"


See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses of the bible  predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted.  The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

Monday, 13 February 2017

Yahweh called himself Baal!

“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)


Notice how Yahweh is saying that is was known as Baal, Doesn't this tell you people were worshiping him as Baal? No wonder Matthew said Jesus and his family went to offer to Baal 

So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
(Matthew 2:15)

The above is a prophecy which Matthew claimed was fulfilled, taken from the Old Testament collection book of Hosea. Let's read this fulfilled passage :

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

(Hosea 11:1)


Seems like a straight forward prophecy, but if the NT author claims this is a true fulfilment of jesus then Hosea is telling us an epical story of what happened during that childhood of jesus. Let's carry on reading the next verse as to get more deep into this story :

But the more I called to him, the farther he moved from me, offering sacrifices to the images of Baal and burning incense to idols. (Hosea 11:2)

Did you catch the joke Matthew gave half of Hosea he didn't include that Jesus and his family went to offer sacrifices to Baal. We can conclude Yahweh is Baal an idol pagans worship. "The occurrence of Baal in the proper names of families of patriots like Saul, David, Jonathan, Joash (the father of Jerubbaal), and indeed merely such a name as Bealiah, ‘Jehovah is Baal’ (1 Chronicles 12:5)"

Here comes the sucker punch! Below we shall show from the Hebrew text that Yahweh called himself Baal Explicitly!

Indeed, your husband is your Maker-- His name is Yahweh of Hosts-- and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth. (Isaiah 54:5)

Notice from the above verse Yahweh is Undeniably calling himself the Husband, interestingly the Hebrew text says  בָּעַל Baal so the text should read like this :

Indeed, your Baal is your Maker-- His name is Yahweh of Hosts-- and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth. (Isaiah 54:5)

There you have it Yahweh is Baal who the pagans worshipped through Idols. Even his alleged son acknowledged it which Matthew tried to hide but got caught out.

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Jonathan struggles to answer a simple Question!

It's not shocking to see Jonathan in a predicament where he is unable to answer questions posed on him. Take off instance in this video clip which was taken from the debate between Jonathan mclatchie and Dr Shabir Ally in London. During Question time I asked Jonathan a simple Question wether Jesus was God?. If Jesus was God how does God get tempted and bewitched by Satan!. Simple Question right? Not for Jonathan I thought the guy would explode from his facial expression and vocal stuttering. Jonathan was struggling to answer a Simple Question he's desperate attempt made him lose the plot!.

He said God can make Satan do things by his own permission and he used job as an example?. His answer had absolutely no relationship with the question since Satan willing went to Jesus and wiling left him. Notice how Jonathan said God must of given permission to Satan to do certain things? Really Jonathan.!

He further said everything already belonged to Jesus as mentioned in Mark and Matthew but Satan was refereeing to the spiritual kingdom? Jonathan really lost the plot. If that's the case Jonathan Why did Satan offer him the spiritual kingdom when Satan knew  His father was the owner? Jonathan knew he wasn't making any sense so he dropped the mic and sat down.

If Jonathan is troubled by one single Question I asked, I wonder how he's going to cope with Tougher question I have for him.

Saturday, 11 February 2017

The Bible alteration is more recent than the introduction of the Happy Meal.

Yes guys we have real evidence of recent changes made in the bible which Christians claim to be the very word of God, the infallible, untouched, uncorrupted bible! Now the ultimate Question is where is this alteration ? It's found within the so called Torah which Christians and Jews read let's read the text and then find out how Corruption slipped in but before that I just want to briefly Quote regarding certain versions of the bible from a Christian view 

The New American Standard Bible is a popular English translation, a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It was completed in 1971 and then revised and updated in 1995. I want to highlight one major change in one passage of the NASB — a case in which the 1995 update alters — and is intended to reverse –  the text of the 1971 NASB.
Those dates are important in understanding the reason for this change. …

Now, let us look at the analysis of come critical Bible verses which have been edited in the context of contemporary views on abortion which brings us to the text I want to highlight here as another example of politicized distortion via translation: (Exodus 21:22-25.)
Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21:22-25)
You can see how this fits in the context of the chapter. Here is another category of victim for which another set of punishments for violence is given. If a pregnant woman gets struck “so that she has a miscarriage,” but is not herself injured, then the man who struck her must pay a fine. But if the woman herself is injured, then the same rules and punishments for striking any other (non-slave) person apply — “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”
But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”  (Exodus 21:22-25)

“So that she has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “so that she gives birth prematurely.”

Wait… what?  Why the distinction between miscarriage and premature birth with no injury (presumably to the fetus/baby)?  Because this change in the text fits with the new view on abortion which started to pervade U.S. politics starting in the late 1970s:


Here's what happend :

something changed between 1977 and 1995 — something that had nothing to do with scholarship, language, accuracy, fidelity or readability.
American politics had changed between 1977 and 1995. It had polarized and radicalized millions of American Protestants, rallying them around a single issue and thus, as intended, rallying them behind a single political party.
In 1977, the sort of American Protestants who purchased most Bibles couldn’t be summed up in a single word. But by 1995, they could be: “abortion.”
And for anti-abortion American evangelicals, Exodus 21:12-27 was unacceptable. It suggested that striking and killing an unborn fetus was in a separate category from striking and killing a “person.” Strike and kill a free person, you get the death penalty. Strike and kill an unborn fetus, you get a fine.
And so in 1995, like those earlier translators who invented and inserted “Junias,” the translators of the NASB reshaped this passage. “She has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury” would, in consideration of the changes in American politics since 1977, henceforth be transformed into “she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury.”
Politics — specifically, the political desire to control women — shaped the translation of that text. The translators changed the words of the Bible to make it seem like it supported their political agenda. They changed the words of the Bible so that others reading it would not be able to see that its actual words challengedand contradicted their political agenda. …

So the Bible is the “unchanging and inerrant” word of God Almighty, according to these fundamentalists who “read the Bible literally”… until, apparently, it says something that they don’t like.  And then, what’s the solution?  Apparently, the solution is to change the text to say what they want it to say. Isn't this sufficient evidence proof that the bible has been changed recently.
Imagine due to certain legal policy the words of the bible change!!
Doesn't this remind you of what the book of Jeremiah said?
How can you say we are wise and have the Torah when the lying scribes have changed it (Jeremiah 8:8)

Shame shame!!!!!!

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...