Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Paul Beliar Williams Does it Again - Part 3

PW’s basic ignorance and lack of theological and philosophical rigor is on full display in his recent replies (see here and here), which conveniently only respond to one of the recent posts I wrote in response to his attempt to cover up the following lie about what Christians believe:


And this is only the latest instance of PW lying and trying to deceive people. As far back as April, 2012, as well as several other times in between, PW was caught in another attempted cover up when he wrote an ill-informed post on Psalm 22, which I quickly exposed. After I did so, PW quietly took down the offending post from his website, refusing all the while to let his readers know that what they read from PW was not true. Rather than confess his error and help correct those he misled by the original post, PW decided to hold on to his pride and was happy to let his readership languor in ignorance (see here and here). These are the actions of a man with a seared conscience, in which case it is quite possible that he doesn’t even know anymore when he is lying or telling the truth.

Turning to his recent reply, let’s begin with some minor points and minor errors (with the exception of misplaced commas).   
Note: my name is Paul Bilal Williams, gratuitous insults are not appropriate for one who calls himself a Christian.
If our conversation has shown anything, it has shown that PW is either a brazen liar, in which case there is nothing gratuitous about associating him with his father (i.e. Belial or Beliar), or he doesn’t have a clue what a “Christian” is, in which case he has no idea what is appropriate behavior for one who bears that name, even though he falsely continues to parade his extensive knowledge of Christianity. I have it on good authority that someone who follows Christ is well within the range of appropriate, Christ-honoring behavior if he identifies implacable, impenitent, inveterate enemies of Christ who falsify the truth as liars or even as the sons of Belial or spawn of Satan, especially since such people refuse to understand or hear what they are being told and desire only to continue perpetuating their lies:
 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. (John 8)
13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; (Deuteronomy 13, KJV; see also Judges 19:22, 20:13, 1 Samuel 1:16, 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, 25, 30:22, 2 Samuel 16:7, 20:1, 23:6, 1 Kings 21:13, 2 Chronicles 13:7)
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? (2 Corinthians 6)
PW claims that there are several Christians who agree with his sensibilities (against the above testimony of Holy Scripture, mind you), and who are so offended by how he and other Muslims are treated that they told him they don’t read this blog.

First, I find it exceedingly doubtful that there are several “Christians” communicating such things to PW, especially since I only have PW’s word for it, which I don’t trust for a moment; second, my loyalty is to Christ and His word and to those who are faithful to it, so I have little concern for measuring up to the standards of professing Christians whose loyalties are so skewed that they are given to whispering flattering words in PW’s ear, even if these nameless people exist; third, PW is not simply a Muslim innocently seeking for the truth…he is a proud apostate who spends his time lying about the faith and attacking Christ and His people, which isn’t true of all Muslims; fourth, I find all of PW’s whining quite disingenuous. Just like the enemies of Christ in John 8 spoke evil words concerning Him, and thus had no legitimate grounds for complaining when Jesus traced their evil words back to their true source, so PW has no legitimate grounds for complaining when I look at what PW and his rabble say about Christ, the Bible, and other Christians, and accurately trace them back to their source in Satan, their spiritual father. Here are some gems for the nameless “many” that allegedly sympathize with PW:

When people refer to Jesus as the lamb of God, PW responds with comments like the following:


When PW is irritated or irked, he dismisses his interlocutors as mentally unstable.


Rather than bore people with an excessive amount of additional examples, note finally PW’s reply to a Muslim who thinks it is funny to call himself “Jesus” while blaspheming the real Jesus. (This was a “welcome back” note from “Jesus” to PW after PW went on a vacation with,…well, I will let PW tell you. He tends to be very open about it.)


The above is one of the worst displays of hatred for Christ and vitriol spewed towards Him, a vitriol and hatred that perfectly mirrors that of the wicked people who wagged their heads and mocked Him at the foot of His cross.

Since PW’s attacks on David and Sam, even posting a series of pictures making them looking like homosexual lovers (*), are frequent and well known, as are his attacks against other people who disagree with him, calling them “closet queens,” “closet homosexuals,” etc., very strange comments coming from PW of all people (*), I will gloss over many other instances that further prove PW’s duplicity and disingenuousness in pretending to have some kind of moral high ground in this discussion. (Ironically, in the very post where PW put up pictures of David and Sam, PW had several Muslims chide him for his disreputable behavior.)

Since PW likes issuing challenges, I challenge him to produce the names of Christians, i.e. members in good standing of Reformed and Evangelical churches, or any other catholic (see below for clarification), who gleefully read the above comments on his blog and then congratulated him for his good behavior and truthful words over and against my call for PW to repent of being an inveterate liar and exchange his status from being a Son of Belial to a son of God through Christ. I would love to see if anyone, let alone several Christians, really fell for PW’s crocodile tears, or if this is just another one of PW’s lies. (NB: pseudonyms that PW and his Muslim readership can make up do not count.)

The next item in PW’s catalogue of errors is his basic ignorance regarding the word “catholic.” Since I quoted the Athanasian Creed as an authoritative source defining orthodox Trinitarianism, which uses the “offending” word, PW asked,
So Rogers the fundamentalist evangelical is now a Catholic?
First, I have never called myself a “fundamentalist evangelical.” While that label is not entirely inappropriate, at least as long as PW is not supplying the meaning, for he hardly knows the difference between his own front and backside, my own theological convictions are more appropriately and fully described as “Reformed” or “Presbyterian.” In the Reformed tradition the Athanasian Creed, as well as the Apostle’s Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed are all accepted as accurate statements of the faith once for all entrusted unto the saints. Furthermore, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is one of the principal confessions of Reformed Christians, it defines the Church as catholic:
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all. 
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 
III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. 
IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (Ch. XXV)
Secondly, PW evidently thinks the word “catholic,” which is derived from katholikos, meaning “general” or “universal,” is the same thing as Roman Catholic, which is a later, and even contradictory (Roman = particular, local; catholic = universal), use of the term. Originally the term referred to all Christians who confessed the orthodox faith, whether they were Eastern or Western Christians. Somehow PW was a “Christian” and even studied Christianity at Birkbeck and Heythrop college at the University of London, or so we are told, and yet he doesn’t know what every freshman knows before the end of the first day of the first semester of Church History class. (It was at this same institution that PW was supposed to have become “competent in Greek,” and yet in our discussion of Mark 6:50, where Jesus identifies Himself as Yawheh, egw eimi, PW couldn’t get past English translations. Perhaps it is the schools fault, but I would rather not besmirch the name of an entire institution in order to absolve PW, a career deceiver.) Since he may have missed his Church History class that day or possibly even the entire semester, here is what it says about the word “catholic” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
Catholic….It is first met with in Christian literature in St Ignatius of Antioch (Ep. Ad. Smyr. 8. 2). In Christian terminology it has come to have various uses: (1) Of the universal Church as distinct from local Christian communities. It is applied thus to the faith of the whole Church, i.e. the doctrine believed ‘everywhere, always, and by all’ (see VINCENTIAN CANON).….
So much for PW’s spectacular ignorance on something as basic as the meaning of the word “catholic.” Although not as major as the following error, where PW attempts to play philosopher and demonstrate the incoherence of the divinely revealed doctrine of the Trinity, it does illustrate the level of understanding that PW is working with, even on those occasions when he is not lying but just simply wrong.

What about the all-important issue of the Trinity? PW pretends on the one hand that the premise I supplied, and even gave four variations of, is not an additional premise, and then turns around and confuses it with the view of WLC, even referring to his “Cerberus analogy” as a “celebrated” analogy. I can only wonder whom PW thinks he is referring to when he speaks of those who “celebrate” this analogy. I personally can’t think of anyone who thinks it is a good analogy, not even those who hold to a Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity, which I do not. In any event, the very fact that PW thought my view was no different than that articulated by WLC shows how much of a sophomore he is and that he has no business pretending like he is offering anything of substance against my view. In fact, not only is WLC’s view not my view, but also it has not been the majority report in church history. The vast majority of Christian theologians, at least in the West, have held to and taught what is called the Latin Trinitarian view (q.v. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, p. 234). 

According to the ST model, each person of the Trinity is simply an instantiation of divinity, such that when it is said that each person “shares” the divine nature and divine attributes, it is akin to the way in which separate human beings “share” human nature. In other words, each person of the Trinity on this view is thought of as sharing the same kind of nature, but not a single nature, essence, being, etc. This view has often been charged with tritheism. Adherents of this view repudiate this charge, but since I do not hold to this model, I will let those who do so defend themselves on that point, as indeed many have tried. As much as I dissent from WLC’s view, I don’t think anyone doubts that he would easily handle PW and make child’s play of his “arguments”.

In stark contrast to this, however, according to the LT model, the one I hold to, each person of the Trinity does not possess merely the same kind of being, essence, or nature; rather, each person is numerically identical to the divine nature. That is, by definition, this view holds that there is only one being, not three beings, and the Father, Son, and Spirit, though personally distinct from one another, are essentially and absolutely one. Numerical identity is sometimes charged with being a form of modalism, a charge I do not believe actually sticks, but no one who is conversant in these matters thinks the view amounts to tritheism. In fact, at this point I will issue another challenge to PW: cite for me one theologian/philosopher who charges LT with being a form of tritheism.

The bottom line is this: all Christians would agree that each person of the Trinity is completely God and that each person possesses every divine attribute. The difference enters in when it is asked what this means. At this point, two different premises emerge: 1) the generic view; and 2) the numerical identity view. The former is the view PW is attacking, and is the only view he seems to be aware of. The latter is the view I hold, and it is the historic view. So PW doesn’t even know the difference between the view he is attacking and the historic view of the church, and yet he pompously enters into the fray expecting to make sport of Christians, all the while only playing the fool and parading his folly before all.

At a number of points PW accused me of making mere assertions when defining the doctrine of the Trinity, showing that he doesn’t know the basic difference between defining something and arguing for it. When it comes to saying what the doctrine of the Trinity is, the Church asserts that it is the doctrine that there is one God; that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each fully God, i.e. they are numerically identical in their being and essence; and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each a distinct person; and since we are talking definition here, it is silly for PW to respond to this as mere assertions rather than an argument. Definitions aren’t intended to be arguments. This is what the doctrine is by definition, and this is what PW needs to show by way of argument to actually entail polytheism. So far he has not done so. So far, and at best, he has only attacked a view I don’t hold, although even at that I don’t think he has done much of anything. No advocate of ST will have lost any sleep after reading PW. And if they would not lose any sleep over his “arguments” against their view, you can be sure I haven’t lost any sleep over his failure to even so much as mention my view.

At this point the reader should be reminded what this whole discussion has been about. First, PW lied about Christians and said we hold to the concept that one God is actually three gods. Second, when called out on this lie, he tried to justify it, saying, in effect, that it was justifiable to misrepresent our view because, even if that isn’t our concept, it is entailed by what we believe. Third, I have now shown that tritheism isn’t entailed by what we believe, and so his later excuse for lying isn’t even a good cover-up.

For being a habitual and unrepentant liar PW isn’t very good at it. I hope he doesn’t take that as an indication that he needs more practice, but I would hardly be surprised if he does. After all, that is what any self-respecting son of Belial would do.


21 comments:

Answering Judaism said...

Wow, Paul Williams really is repulsive. I don't even know what to say. Plus if he claimed to be a Christian and yet his knowledge of the Trinity is that lacklustre, I am disappointed.

I honestly don't know what else to say, if Williams was a true Christian, then I must of be Sonic the Hedgehog disguised as a human.

Radical Moderate said...

I have noticed that Pee Wee Williams operates with a strict MO, when he gets challenged on his baseless claims.

1. Ask a question that has nothing to do with the topic. His favorite seems to be regarding Jesus and the law. Specifically he is under the impressionism that Jews where ordered to kill teenage children if they insulted their parents.

2. Next he insults and for some reason he will ask "what is your name identify yourself" and if you don't tell him your real name he calls you a coward. Which is strange since most if not all of the Muslims who post on his blog do not comment under their real names.

3. He then dismisses your comments as "silly" or he says he is "bored"

4. He then may repeat a few times, and then he starts deleting comments and ban's the user.

He also may call you "Sick" and say "you worship a sick God" when the topic of God ordering the Israelite to kill man woman, children and even "innocent animals and trees" comes up.

Royal Son said...

Paul Williams writes:

Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. Mere assertion of a belief does not demonstrate there is no contradiction in it. I can repeat all day that bachelors are married men till I am blue in the face but it does not make it so.


My Response:
And yet Paul has been quite unsuccessful to this point to actually demonstrate how the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory.

A contradiction would be something like this:

One being = Three Beings.
or One person = Three Persons.

or how about some other contradictions thrown in for good measure, such as Paul Williams, a self-proclaimed homosexual who tries to show the tolerant nature of Islam to homosexuality to then comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality, and posting articles in favour of punishment for homosexuality.

Or how about the contradiction of Paul saying he would ban people who post inflammatory content on his blog but then gives Ijaz Ahmed free reign to pour hatred upon Sam Shamoun and David Wood?

Or how about the contradiction that you go around labelling people who actually have a backbone as fundamentalists are treat the term like a word that makes you feel dirty and yet being very fundamental in one's own faith to uphold the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Or how about this wee gem:

Accusing Christians of polytheism and repeating that assertion even after being given a lot of opportunity to retract such statements even though you had THIS to say in a post titled "20 quick responses to common anti-religious arguments":

"The majority of the people in the world are actually monotheists (even if they do not always agree about doctrines and so forth), so even if ‘mankind has created thousands of Gods,’ numbers are still on the theist side."

Say WHAT Mr. Williams? The MAJORITY of the people in the world are MONOTHEISTS?

Wait wait wait......

Back up the truck for a second....

Majority?

REALLY?

Are you sure?

Ok let's do some number crunching.

Islam has a population of about 1.5 Billion

Judaism has a population of 14 million.

The world population is 7.125 billion people. You're short by about 2 Billion to get that majority you were talking about. Now what on Earth could you be referring to? A monotheistic religion that will make up the 2 billion shortfall....hmmmm

Oh yes, that's right - Christianity - you know, that faith you knowingly misrepresented? That one you accused of being polytheistic when you knew full well that they are not.

Royal Son said...

I must say I'm rather disappointed in Mr. Williams' poor showing.
He writes:

"No jumping around involved simply recognition of the facts of the case namely: that if each distinct person of the Trinity is COMPLETELY God then we have 3 gods by definition."


My response:

No. we do not have 3 gods by definition. They are completely God and by God we mean the SAME ONE GOD.

Mr. Williams will have to do a lot better than that. Paper doesn't grow on trees and debate points don't come from a brain freeze.

A contradiction would look something like this:

"God is 3 Gods"
or
"1 person is 3 persons"
or
"1 being is 3 beings"
or
"The Father is the Son and the Son in the Holy Spirit but they are not each other."


And yet neither I, nor Anthony subscribe to any of the above.

How about this for a contradiction:

"Paul Williams is an openly gay Muslim apologist who tries to show how tolerant Islam is towards gay people but posts articles saying how evil homosexuality is, likening it to bestiality and pedophilia, and posting articles about how homosexuality should be punished,"

Or this:

"Paul Williams will ban people who mock and insult, and yet gives free reign to Ijaz Ahmed to post his insulting pictures of Sam Shamoun and David Wood inferring that they are a gay couple"

But wait folks, it gets even better:

In a post titled "20 Quick responses to common anti-religious arguments"
Paul Williams promotes an article with the following preface:
" Adil is author of the controversial ESSAY “10 Problems With ”Dawahmen”. Today on a lighter note we publish here his wonderful primer in apologetics “20 Quick responses to common anti-religious arguments”
Enjoy…"

Scrolling down to Response Number 20, we read:

"20.) Humans have invented thousands of Gods, so if NUMBERS are anything to go by, the chance of your God being the real one is a thousand to one if that"

The majority of the people in the world are actually monotheists (even if they do not always agree about doctrines and so forth), so even if ‘mankind has created thousands of Gods,’ NUMBERS are still on the theist side."



Say WHAT Mr. Williams? The Majority of the people in the world are MONOTHEISTS?

Wait wait wait, back up the truck for a second...

Majority?

Really?

Alright, very well then, let's do some basic number crunching:

Islam has a population of around 1.5 Billion.
Judaism has a population of around 14 Million.

That gives you a total of 1.514 Billion people.
The Word Population is currently 7.125 Billion people.
A bare majority of 51 percent would be 3.634 Billion

So you're out by 2.1 Billion. Now where are we going to find a religion that comprises 2.1 Billion people? Hmmmmmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmm. Oh wait? I know - Christianity has a population of 2.1 Billion People. What's that? Christianity? You mean that religion you've been knocking as polytheistic? Yep THAT ONE.

Royal Son said...

Paul quotes and adds:

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. therefore three gods.


My Response:
How so Paul? How does three persons equate to three gods?
Such an assertion on your part is completely irrational, especially under the presuppositions which you operate:

Is Allah a person Paul? If you say yes, then you're committing Shirk by Muslim standards. Not only are you attributing personhood to Allah, but you are making Allah only a single person which would make him like creation.

On the other hand, if you say no, then by your "logic", Allah is not a god, since you equate person with being.

Honestly Paul, would you not expect God to be quite different to ceation in terms of personhood?
Which model is more like creation Paul? The one-being one-person model of Islam or the one-being three-person model of Christianity?

In fact, as a Muslim, you believe that Allah's nature is different to that of creation. For example, Allah has eyes, hands etc but they are different from those in creation. And even if you don't subscribe to that view, you believe Allah has attributes that cannot be compared with our own.

Why the inconsistency Paul?

An example of your rigid reasoning and quite frankly, stubbornness was already brought out by Mr. Rogers, your insistence that a mention of lamb in the New Testament when speaking of Jesus was a literal furry, four-legged animal when you know yourself that scriptures use a vast range of linguistical devices, including the use of metaphor. Your response to this was most disappointing that "metaphorical lambs don't get offered for sins".

You cry foul, demanding respect from Mr. Rogers and yet you barely bat an eyelid pouring your venomous hared for the Bible, and even banned me from your site when I charged you to be consistent.

Royal Son said...

Unfortunately, my computer was experiencing issues and I accidentally posted part one twice, albeit as slightly different versions.

Answering Judaism said...

This might be a waste of time but this might be benefit Williams to read this: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-lamb-of-god.html

King Arthur said...

bro anthony...I still think we need you or brother david or brother sam to articulate in a video the contrasting views of what the arab god called, " the god " (al lah) recites in the qur'an as the christians beliefs to the actual christian view of the tri-une God of the bible.
.
why is this so important?....because if the arab god is a liar (and he is) then this is THE PROOF that the arab god is fake and a liar and islam is a deception.
.
the fact that qur'anic recitals define son of god as a second god besides the arab god; is in itself only indicative of the arab god being not all knowing and worse a liar
.
the fact that the qur'anic verses alledge in the future christians will take isa and marium for two other gods besides the arab god also demonstrates the erroneous false accusation of what christians really believe
.
again the fact that the qur'anic view of the jews making ezera a second god further underscores the incompetence of the arab god
.
much should be made of these blunders, because knowing the nature and character of the One true God is in fact the first principle in faith. Jesus commended Peter that the Father had revealed to him who Jesus himself was and that on this Jesus would build His congregation. re: revelation from the Father who Jesus is.
.
also it can be clearly shown theologically and historically that no christian has ever believed that Jesus was a second God....actually not even heretics like mormons, JW's Oneness unitarians or cults of various shades ever say or believe that.
.
One God; yet three persons, not three gods....it seems too hard for some to understand
.
The word " Elohim " is plural in the shema as I understand it. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD...but does not mean three gods. This would be another good topic
.
So also the plurality of " let us create man in our image" of genesis as not being equal to the imperial "I" as the qur'an erroneously infers because historic and theologically the hebrews never used the imperial "I".
.
So many more points could be made....I really hope you guys make a video hammering out these crucial issues into a video that we could post in our interactions with muslims to help them see that islam is false and christianity is true.
.

David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"qur'anic verses alledge in the future christians will take isa and marium for two other gods"

Do you think there is only 1 God?
Do you think there are three gods?
Do you think God acquired a son in the course of time?
Do you think God acquired a son through intimate interaction with a female?
Do you think Mary is worthy of worship?

Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1965. _Jesus in the Qur'an_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 187pp.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Quran-Geoffrey-Parrinder/dp/1851689990/
On 133, the opening paragraph of the "Trinity" chapter:
IT has often been thought that the Qur'an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur'an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of its statements. An examination of the different passages will show this.

Parrinder on 137:
The Qur'an denies Christian heresies of Adoption, Patripassianism, and Mariolotry. But it affirms the Unity, which is at the basis of trinitarian doctrine.

Sura 5:75 appears to me to be a repudiation of the heresy of Patripassianism-- the view that God the Father died on the cross, a heresy expounded by Noetus and Praxeas. See Parrinder, 133.

Sura 5:75: "They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'"

There were individuals who engaged in Mariolotry-- the unseemly exaltation of Maryam/ Mary, e.g. the Collyridians of the 300s. See Parrinder, 135.

King Arthur said...

to david ford
.
the topic i brought up was clear; in fact three main points...the fact that the qur'an is defining the words 'son of god ' as a 'second god ' besides the arab god muslims call "the god" is clear....you can try to muddle this fact but it still stands.
.
other topics i brought up in connection to this qur'anic paridigm include that the qur'an accuses christians of taking isa for a second god and accuses jews of taking ezera for a second god....I admit when i see your posts and all the links I dont bother reading them because you can just simplify the facts by simple statements like I am....for instance if you think you can excuse the fact of false misrepresentation of the qur'an false accusing christians of believing in a second god then it is on YOU to show from the qur'an where it says otherwise. Likewise its on YOU to show from the qur'an that the jews did not take ezera for a second god, or that the christians did not take isa for a second god....its not up to me...its up to you. Furthermore if you want to snake out of controversy by saying that qur'anic recitals were for a heretical sect of jews and or christians???....then YOU need to show from the qur'an who and where they are historically....AFTER ALL YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THE QUR'AN IS .....PERFECTLY CLEAR.....right?
.
Instead i suspect you will not do above but simple try to muddle issues with conjecture
.
although you do not deserve an answer to your questions because they are besides the point of qur'anic lies.....its in a christian to answer what he can honestly so here goes:
.
you asked:
Do you think there is only 1 God?
.
Yes all christians believe in only one God
.
Do you think there are three gods?
.
In reference to deity NO but in reference to men as rulers YES
.
Do you think God acquired a son in the course of time?
.
No the One God is Spirit; with no beginning and with no end... from everlasting to everlasting in the Eternal consisting of three persons: which are better understood as of 'personality' a Father=Love, a Son=Truth and a Holy Spirit=Teacher/ Comforter....it is that these tri-personalitys of the One God that are from everlasting with no beginning and no end....it is that the 2nd person of God (the Truth) that entered His creation and emptied His divinity in an act of divine humiliation to take the form of a human soas to do His Father will of selfless benevolence in dying for the sin of the world so that if you have the same faith as Abraham; who believed YHWH promise then likewise we can recieve the benefits of YHWH's promises of eternal atonement and salvation through the life death and ressurrection of the true Jesus.
.
Do you think God acquired a son through intimate interaction with a female?
.
No but this is another lie in qur'an which i forgot to expose....but rather I believe that the third person of the One tri-une God OVERSHADOWED the virgin Mary and the body of Jesus was "prepared" by the Father to fill up the volume which of the Law, psalms and prophets spoke of. To say that God had sex with a human is damnable but to say the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary is true.
.
Do you think Mary is worthy of worship?
.
No but worthy of high regard, yet even Mary confessed she had need of a saviour....but the fact that Mary prophesied that "all generations shall call her blessed" indicates to me that she was "highly favored" in the eyes of God. Nevertheless she was not "immaculate"....she did not ascend into heaven....she is not a mediator....she ought not to be prayed to....and she would be ashamed of statues of her today.
.

King Arthur said...

remember David Ford....
.
you say>>>>
Sura 5:75 appears to me to be a repudiation of the heresy of Patripassianism-- the view that God the Father died on the cross, a heresy expounded by Noetus and Praxeas. See Parrinder, 133.
.
.
but now i ask you plainly, does the qur'an say it?....or are you making it "...appear..." to say it?.....
.
EITHER WAY THE QUR'AN LIES.....
1) the qur'an boasts to be perfectly clear
.
2)but not clear to the point where YOU HAVE TO INTERJECT WHAT SEEMS TO ...." APPEAR.."

ellie said...

Jesus prayed to the Father. He said He would send the Holy Spirit to be with us and in us.
People who say such things as Beliar have never studied the bible. They only want to mislead people and stir up controversy.I don't believe that trying to communicate rationally with such people is in anyway useful.
Paul the apostle told us not to argue or get involved in controversy. I suppose someone needs to set the record straight but as far as illuminating this fellow......that is a waste of time.

Nojmul Huda said...

Islam is a religion for deceiver/cheater, a wolf in sheep’s cloth. How can we expect Paul William, a believer of false prophet Muhamad and his false god Allah, understands true deity of One God in Three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Muhammad, a shrewd businessman, a playboy to confuse people of faith, said that his imaginary god Allah cheated Jews by replacing Iscariot Judas for Jesus face, who they crucified. What a childish game Muhammad played to convince Christian to deny Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection that brought hope for all people for eternal life who believe Jesus.

Paul William has fallen into Muhammad’s trap of deception and believed him, as savoir for mankind doing nothing for mankind rather taking innocent blood by fighting as ISIS, AL-Qaeda, Boko-Haram are doing around the world.

Muhammad established Jerusalem as Muslim’s third holy place by sleeping in Mecca with his cousin. It is said Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem and then from there to 7 heaven where he met Moses and his god Allah and got instruction for Muslim’s prayer. But ironically he did not take any of his cousins as witness while he visited Jerusalem and seven heavens. Whereas, Jesus Christ while transfigured on the mountain took Peter, James and John as witness to establish His credibility as Son of God.

Paul William you were in dark as Christian not finding treasure in the Gospel and now you returned to the dark again. All people are not qualified to find real gem out of fake and you are one of them.

David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"the qur'an is defining the words 'son of god' as a 'second god' besides the arab god muslims call 'the god'"

According to Sale, [Sale]"some at the council of Nice… said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites."

Sale, George. 1734, 1764, 1825, 1877, 1891. _The Koran: Commonly Called the Alkoran of Mohammed_.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7440/pg7440.html
Among the Arabs it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and the Nazaraens, and also that of the Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the latter introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sect had its name. This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous, and gave a handle to Mohammed to attack the Trinity itself. Other sects there were of many denominations within the borders of Arabia, which took refuge there from the proscriptions of the imperial edicts; several of whose notions Mohammed incorporated with his religion, as may be observed hereafter.

[KA]"the qur'an… accuses jews of taking ezera for a second god"

If I come across info regarding "Ezera," I'll mention it.

[KA]"the fact of false misrepresentation of the qur'an false accusing christians of believing in a second god"

"Tritheites" aka certain "Monophysites" believed in not just [KA]"a second god" but also a third god.

Tritheites
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15061b.htm
Heretics who divide the Substance of the Blessed Trinity.
(1) Those who are usually meant by the name were a section of the Monophysites, who had great influence in the second half of the sixth century, but have left no traces save a few scanty notices in John of Ephesus, Photus, Leontius, etc.

David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THE QUR'AN IS .....PERFECTLY CLEAR.....right?"

Usama K. Dakdok is a follower of al-Nabia Isa, and has Arabic as his first language. He translated the Quran, and I can say that, after having read some of his _The Generous Qur'an_, the result is a mess. Dakdok observes on xiv, "The reader should not be alarmed if difficulty is encountered in gaining any meaning from significant portions of the Qur'an because the reader is in good company." Compare:

Lester, Toby. January 1999. "What Is the Koran?" in _The Atlantic_.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true
GERD-R. Puin…. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on."

What's mainly going on is that the Quran isn't in Arabic, but rather is mostly Aramaic-- about 70% Aramaic, in fact.

Another intriguing quote from that same article:
Gerd-R. Puin's current thinking about the Koran's history…. "My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad," he says. "Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants."

Exhibit A might be Sura 96's injunction to go bow down (undoubtedly in worship) and take communion.

King Arthur said...

david......hello?...hmmm...i mentioned what the qur'an says and you go on and on posting links (which i ignore)...its kinda like we are jockeying for what issue to chat about?...lol
.
the only real answer you have given pertaining to my original post to bro anthony was to quote
.
Sura 5:75 appears to me to be a repudiation of the heresy of Patripassianism-- the view that God the Father died on the cross, a heresy expounded by Noetus and Praxeas. See Parrinder, 133.

Sura 5:75: "They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'"
.
when i read Sura 5:75 (as below) it does not say anything about the 'father crucified' heresy like you had to make it "appear"
.
lets read it shall we...
.
S 5:75. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
.
See?...where does it mention the heresy you are saying it infers to "appears" to say?
.
david ?...go back and start over --you are really confusing topic
.
again, look at S 5:75...the reason why it says "...His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! ." is because of the qur'anic lie that christians believed that esa (isa, jesus) and his mother were two other gods...........DAVID STOP...REREAD THIS POINT, REREAD S 5:75...i am not making this 'appear' to say this...it just says it. Seriously i cannot spoon feed you any more-- face it--the qur'anic recitals from the not so all knowing 'al lah' lied falsely accusing christians of taking esa and his mother for two other gods....no where does qur'an make clear if its only condemning a sect ...you david have still not shown where islamic theology says what it says otherwise from the qur'an.

David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"you go on and on posting links (which i ignore)"

So you ignore the URLs. Have you been ignoring the quotations I'm presenting?

[KA]"where does it mention the heresy you are saying it infers to 'appears' to say?"

In my opinion-- and it is of course your right to disagree-- these 2 Quranic statements from Sura 5 are critiques of Noetus's claim that [Parrinder]"Christ was God the Father, and therefore that the Father himself was born and suffered and died":

[Quran, Sura 5, Arberry translation]"They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' …. They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'"

[KA]"the qur'anic lie that christians believed that esa (isa, jesus) and his mother were two other gods…. the not so all knowing 'al lah' lied falsely accusing christians of taking esa and his mother for two other gods"

How many gods do you think Tritheists worshipped?
What were the names of the gods that the Tritheists worshipped?

[Hughes]"The controversies regarding the nature and person of our Divine Lord had begotten a sect ot Tritheists, led by a Syrian philosopher named John Philoponus of Alexandria, and are sufficient to account for Muhammad's conception of the Blessed Trinity. The worship of the Virgin Mary had also given rise to…."

Hughes, Thomas Patrick. 1895. _A Dictionary of Islam: Being a Cyclopaedia of the Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies, and Customs, Together with the Technical and Theological Terms of the Muhammadan Religion_ (London: W.H. Allen & Co.), 750pp.
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/c.htm
On 53, under the entry for "Christianity and Christians":
This "War of the Elephant" marks the period of Muhammad's birth. [MUHAMMAD.]
The Christianity of this period is described by Mosheim as "expiring under a motley and enormous heap of superstitious inventions, with neither the courage nor the force to raise her head or display her national charms to a darkened and deluded world." Doubtless much of the success of Islam in its earlier stage was due to the state of degradation into which the Christian Church had fallen. The bitter dissensions of the Greeks, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monophysites are matters of history, and must have held up the religion of Jesus to the ridicule of the heathen world. The controversies regarding the nature and person of our Divine Lord had begotten a sect ot Tritheists, led by a Syrian philosopher named John Philoponus of Alexandria, and are sufficient to account for Muhammad's conception of the Blessed Trinity. The worship of the Virgin Mary had also given rise to a religious controversy between the Antiduo-Marianites and the Collyridans; the former holding that the Virgin was not immaculate, and the latter raising her to a position of a goddess. Under the circumstances it is not surprising to find that the mind of the Arabian reformer turned away from Christianity and endeavoured to construct a religion on the lines of Judaism.

King Arthur said...

david......hi, you have been victorious in burying my original comments to bro anthony about how the recitals in the qur'an lie about christians beliefs by babbling on and on about your conjecture or opinions with associated links.
.
the times you have referred to qur'anic verses that you provided still do not demonstrate what your opinion wants them to say.
.
you say>>>In my opinion-- and it is of course your right to disagree-- these 2 Quranic statements from Sura 5 are critiques of Noetus's claim that [Parrinder]"Christ was God the Father, and therefore that the Father himself was born and suffered and died":

[Quran, Sura 5, Arberry translation]"They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' …. They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.'"
.
my reply is that I have read those verses you supplied and they simple did not say what you are saying.
.
why is that important? because the recitals from the arab god in the qur'an are suppose to be from an all knowing god; and clearly revealed in poetic pros?....why is it that YOU have to insert YOUR CONJECTURE and say things that the verses did not say? did not allah have the abiblity of saying things clearly?...conversly my replys have been to mention that other qur'anic verses do clearly point to falsely claiming christians have taken esa (isa; jesus) and his mother for two other gods. No where does the qur'an claim that the "father" was apart of this false indictment.
.
why cant you understand that? this point totally destroys all your 'links' as unimportant conjecture not associated with the topic. Furthermore no where does the qur'an claim the "father" was apart of muhammads understanding....no where
.
you say>>>
How many gods do you think Tritheists worshipped?
. I reply.....who cares?...its not part of our topic....our topic is what the qur'an says or doesn't say
.
you say>>>
What were the names of the gods that the Tritheists worshipped?
.
I reply...again who cares?...i don't.
.
do you now understand david ford?....do we have to beat this dead horse anymore?
.
lets stick with what sources of islam actually say not what you want it to say based on your opinion; then you will reluctantly have to admit that allah the arab god lied about christian beliefs.
.
finally one last point:
.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
[KA]"the qur'an… accuses jews of taking ezera for a second god"

If I come across info regarding "Ezera," I'll mention it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
no don't bother; but if you come across islamic sources preferable from the qur'an which detail what the arab god meant other than what the arab god said...then by all means please mention it....but until then we must take the arab god recitals for what they say and thus conclude the arab god is not all knowing and fake.

King Arthur said...

i spelled EZERA...
.
I meant:
.
EZRA
Ar. Uzair.
Heb: 'Ezrah

•Jews say that ‘Ezra is the son of God’ at-Taubah 9:30


David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"I have read those verses you supplied and they simple did not say what you are saying" "do we have to beat this dead horse anymore?"

I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree. Readers of our posts can make up their own minds.

[KA]"the recitals from the arab god in the qur'an are suppose to be from an all knowing god" "we must take the arab god recitals for what they say and thus conclude the arab god is not all knowing and fake"

What's in the Quran is almost entirely the product of human minds. Some things, e.g. certain statements about al-Nabia Isa in connection with the Ruh of Allah & the Word of Allah are from the Bible, which was written by humans inspired by the Allah of Abraham Isaq and Yaqub.

[KA]"and clearly revealed in poetic pros?"

For me, 'clear poetry' is an oxymoron. But that's just me.

The Quran isn't clear, and it's not in 'clear Arabic.' Moreover, roughly 70% of it isn't even Arabic, but rather Aramaic.

[KA]"did not allah have the ability of saying things clearly?"

I can't make up my mind: I want to say the Allah of Islam exists only in certain people's minds, but I also want to say that the Allah of Islam is Satan.

John 8
http://preview.tinyurl.com/k6tvrcd
42. Yeshua [al-Nabia Isa] said to them,
"If Allaha were your Father,
you would love me,
for I have gone out from Allaha,
and I have come,
and it is not from my own will I have come,
but He sent me.
43. Because of what (reason) do you not comprehend milthi [my word]?
Because you are not able to hear milthi [my word].
44. You are from the abba [father] Akelqartza [Accuser].
And the lusts of your father you want to do,
he who from the beginning killed men.

Luke 9
51. And it happened that when the days of his [al-Nabia Isa's] journey were fulfilled, he hardened his face to go to Urishlim. 52. And he sent malaka [messengers; here, human & not angelic messengers] before his face, and they came (and) entered a village of the Shamaritans in order to prepare for him. 53. And they did not receive him because his face was set to go to Urishlim. 54. And when his talmida [students] Yaqub and Yukhanan saw (it), they said to him, "Maran [our Lord], do you desire us to speak and have nura [fire] descend from heaven and consume them as Eliyah also did?" 55. And he turned around and rebuked them and said,
"You do not realize of which rukha [spirit] you are.
56. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls,
but to make (them) live."
And they went to another village.

John 10
9. ENA-NA [I AM] the Gate,
and if a man should enter by me he will live
and will enter and go out and he will find pasture.
10. A thief does not come but that (he) may steal and kill and destroy.
I have come that they may have life,
and they may have something which is abundant.

"Jews say that ‘Ezra is the son of God’ at-Taubah 9:30"

Could that "the" be instead an "a"?
I like to believe that I'm a son of God.

John 11
49. Now one of them whose name (was) Qayapa was the Rab-Kahna [High/Chief -Priest] in that year, and he said to them, "You do not know anything, 50. and you do not realize that it is better for us that one man should die for the sake of the nation, than that all the nation should perish." 51. He was the Rab-Kahna in that year, and he did not say this from his own will, because he prophesied that Yeshua [al-Nabia Isa] was about to die for the sake of the nation, 52. and not only for the sake of the nation, but also that the sons of Allaha who are scattered he might gather into one.

King Arthur said...

david ford............(...yawn..).....ok then, lets just agree to disagree...see ya.