Muslim or Muhammadan?

S.3:52. When Jesus found
Unbelief on their part
He said: “Who will be
My helpers to (the work
Of) God?” Said the Disciples:
“We are God’s helpers:
We believe in God,
And do thou bear witness
That we are Muslims.

According to the above ayah, believers in Allah before the time / existence of Muhammad were already “Muslim!” How then does Islam say to become a Muslim ‘one must believe in Allah and his messenger?’ Even the pagan Arabs believed in Allah and were still persecuted nonetheless!

Are the millions who claim to be “Muslims” actually not Muslims at all in the Quranic sense, but followers and worshipers of Muhammad? Are they “monotheist” in the sense that they really worship no one else other than Muhammad? Or does Islam commit the very sin it condemns others for “Shirk?”

This is a question to ponder on, for if one lays their emotions aside and looks at what the Quran teaches on this, the answer may be quite shocking to the serious inquirer!

Why was James,brother of Jesus,killed?Was it because he was a Christian Leader?

Why was James killed in the First Place?

He was killed because he was a CHRISTIAN, and not just any Christian but one of 3 top Christian leaders(with PAUL and PETER). How can I explain it better?

An Imaginary Situation

Suppose an atheist, and not just any atheist but one of the 5 most famous atheist writers in the world(like Richard Dawkins,Christopher Hitchens,Sam Harris,French philosopher Michel Onfray,Dan Barker,John Loftus) is taken by the US government and accused of being a terrorist.

Everybody knows it is false, but he is executed anyway. He would have been obviously killed not because he was a terrorist, a false charge, but because he was an atheist.

CAN JOSEPHUS BE TRUSTED AS A SOURCE?

Josephus wrote his Jewish Antiquities about 95 AD and there he also mentions JOHN the BAPTIST in a half-page report. He can be trusted because of:

A. Time Period

He was born in 37 AD and so he was NOT 2 years old, 5 years old, or 7 years old but 25 YEARS OLD in 62 AD, when James was killed. In other words he was a CONTEMPORARY of the event.

B.Place

He was born in Jerusalem and later he wrote his Autobiography and we know that in 62 AD he was living in Jerusalem. He was in the same city James was killed.

C.Social Position

He was a member of the upper-class and his father was a prominent Jewish priest so Josephus had access to reliable information about the politics of Jerusalem society.

TheText

Jewish Antiquities 20.9:

“And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the BROTHER OF JESUS, who was called CHRIST, whose name was JAMES, and SOME OTHERS and when he had formed an accusation against them as BREAKERS of the LAW,he delivered them to be STONED: but as for those who seemed the MOST EQUITABLE of the citizens, and such as were the MOST UNEASY at the BREACH of the LAWS, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; no, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was NOT LAWFUL for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”

Analysis

Notice it says JAMES was a “breaker of the law”.What law?JEWISH law,because James believed Jesus was GOD,blasphemy.It was NOT because James believed Jesus was the Messiah(not blasphemy),or that he had resurrected(not blasphemy).

It says the most equitable of the Jews were AGAINST “the breach of laws”.What law?ROMAN law,the Jews had NO right to apply capital punishment(except if a Gentile entered the Temple),power of capital punishment had been taken from them in 6 AD(according to the TALMUD).The high priest was a troublemaker,the Romans were going to get angry.

Great Scholarly Articles

Glen Miller is awesome,a real inspiration.His website is so smart,in defense of Jesus against skeptical claims:

http://christianthinktank.com/

EXAMPLE

His article “Was John’s Gospel Anti-Semitic?”

http://christianthinktank.com/ajews.html

 

The Messiah and 2 Yahwehs at the same Time:all by the same prophet Zechariah

Zechariah 2:10-11:

Here the words “daughter of Zion” mean “people of Jerusalem” since Zion is a hill inside Jerusalem  on which was the Temple of Jerusalem.

“Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For:

1.I (Note:I,Yahweh) am coming

2.And I will live(also translated as dwell) among you,” declares Yahweh. “Many nations will be joined with Yahweh in that day and will become my people.

3.I (I,Yahweh) will live among you (My words:the people of Jerusalem)

And you(My words: people of Jerusalem) will know that YAHWEH Almighty has sent me(Note:me,Yahweh) to you( My words:those of Jerusalem). “

Now notice the parallel with Zechariah 9,Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey

Here we have “daughter of Zion” and the “be glad” theme again and it refers to Jesus entering Jerusalem on the last week of his life.

Zechariah 9:9-11:

” Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion (My words:daughter of Zion means Jerusalem)!

Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak Peace to the nations;
his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Notice the following

1.In Zechariah 2 we have God being sent by God to live with the people of Jerusalem.

2.In Zechariah 9 it is the Messiah entering Jerusalem.

It coincides with:

The Messiah is God in the OT

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/04/the-ot-says-the-messiah-will-be-yahweh/

The Messiah’s Name is Yeshua(Jesus) in the OT

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/04/the-old-testament-says-the-messiahs-name-is-yeshua-jesus/

The “Jesus or Muhammad Show”

Here they talk of if Muhammed was actually tricked by Satan and gave verses from him which he thought were from God(“the Satanic Verses”):

Check out the show’s website for more videos:

http://www.abnsat.com/

 

Is Isaiah 53 about Jesus or about the Jewish People?

Isaiah 53 is about the Jewish people (the Jewish position):

In Isaiah the words ”my servant Israel/Jacob  mean the Jewish people, where Jacob was the name of the son of Isaac which was later changed to Israel. So they say Isaiah 53 which has ” my servant ” 2X is about the Jewish people.

Earliest Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53

1.But the earliest Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, and also of Isaiah 9, in the Aramaic Targum( 1st century AD ) says it is about the Messiah.

2.ALL the interpretations of Isaiah 53 in the Talmud ( 500 AD ), except for one, say it is about a man, not the Jewish people. One says it is about the Messiah, another about Jeremiah, and so on. And the exception says it is about a righteous remnant of the Jewish people, not all of them.

3.Even today, the Lubavitchers,an Orthodox group,founded in Eastern Europe,that speaks Yiddish,say Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah.

The contrary Jewish position

The modern Jewish argument is that the prophecy begins in Isaiah 52:13 and ends in Isaiah 53:12 ( which is the end of Isaiah 53 ). We have:

1. From Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 52:15 GOD speaks. ( I agree ).

2. From Isaiah 53:1-8 it is the Gentile Nations or non-Jews who are speaking.

3. From Isaiah 53:9-12 it is God again. But the speaker in Isaiah 53:9-12 is Isaiah in other Jewish interpretations.

Jewish interpretation says the servant is innocent and I agree, the text makes that very clear. The detail that ruins the Jewish interpretation is that of Isaiah 53:6,which can be given two different translations.

They both go contrary to Judaism if you accept that Isaiah 53:1-8 is the GENTILES SPEAKING.

IT IS BECAUSE OF THE PHRASE ” TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE ” THAT OBLIGATORILY ISAIAH 53:1-8 HAS TO BE THE GENTILES SPEAKING IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT THE SERVANT=JEWISH PEOPLE:

I agree that Isaiah 53:1-8 are the words of a man since it has words like:

” Surely he ( Note: the servant ) took our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him…the punishment that brought us peace was upon him….we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us turned his own way. ”

GOD would NOT say ” we all have gone astray. “

Then if it is by Isaiah ( according to Christians ) we have that ” transgression of my people “ in Isaiah 53:8 means ” transgression of my people, of me Isaiah, who are the Jews. “

So that would eliminate the idea that in Isaiah 53 servant= Jewish people since in Isaiah 53 we have ” he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth ” making the servant innocent of transgression.

So that is why they have to say that Isaiah 53:8 is the Gentiles and not Isaiah who is speaking. There the Gentiles say ” trangression of my people” meaning ” trangression of my people, of the non-Jews ( like in the Spanish Inquisition, Russian pogroms, Holocaust, etc ) against the innocent servant ( Jewish people ). ”

The 2 Texts of Isaiah 53:6 in the Jewish Translations

Translation 1

” We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way:

1.And the LORD ” inflicted upon him “( Note: the servant= innocent Jewish people )

2.The iniquity of us all. ” ( Note: the persecution of the Jews by us, non-Jews ).

Translation 2

” We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the LORD:

1.Accepted his prayers ( Note: the prayers of the servant=Jewish people )

2.For the iniquity of all of us. ”

Option 1:

” THE LORD INFLICTED UPON HIM ( servant= Jewish people ) THE INIQUITIES ( sins, crimes ) OF US ALL. ”

Rabbis it talks at length about the unjust persecution of the Jews by the non-Jews. And they say the servant in Isaiah 53 means the Jewish people and that the servant is innocent ( I agree with the second part ).

The theological problem

The phrase ” the Lord inflicted “ means God punishes the servant even though he is innocent. That is theologically contrary to Judaic theology. In the OT God punishes the Jews when they have been evil, NEVER when they are innocent.

The phrase ” the iniquities of us all “ means, accepting it is the Gentiles speaking, that here the Gentiles are referring to crimes that they commited against the Jews ( the Spanish Inquisition, Russian pogroms, the Holocaust, etc ).

Then, why would God punish the servant ( Jewish people ) for crimes commited by the non-Jews? In Judaic theology he is supposed to punish the non-Jews, the sinners, for their sins, not the innocent part.

Can it apply to Jesus?Where the Servant=Jesus

If one says ” the Lord inflicted upon Jesus the iniquities of us all “ then it is in concord with the atonement, where an innocent man bore the sins of the whole world.

Option 2:

” THE LORD ACCEPTED HIS PRAYER ( the prayer of the servant, Jewish people ) FOR THE INIQUITIES ( sins, crimes ) OF US ALL. ”

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy and it is supposed to obligatorily come true since it is the past tense. There in Isaiah 53:6 we have the passage just quote and in the end of Isaiah 53, Isaiah 53:12 it has ” by his knowledge my SERVANT will justify many and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion with the great….for he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. ”

Reality Check

So we have the servant=Jewish people. In the past the Jews have been persecuted and attacked: by the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Tsars, German Nazis, Soviet Communists and now by the Islamic terrorists. Never have they as a people directed prayers to God in favor of their persecutors. Never as a people have they ” made intercession for the transgressors “.

No doubt there are some groups of religious Jews who ask for God to make the enemies of the Jews change and see the light but they are a small group, not enough to actually say the constitute ” the people.” On the contrary the prayers have been for justice for the Jewish people, for punishment of the persecutors. In fact during the time of the Nazis, Communists and now the Islamic terrorists, the majority of Jews have been non-religious, and when they do petition God it certainly was not as intercession for their persecutors.

Can it apply to Jesus?

Where the Servant=Jesus

The death of Jesus, for a Christian, was foretold. A just God is NOT going to blame those who took part in it when their judgement comes. It was foretold he would be rejected. God would only judge them on how they reacted to Jesus after the death: did they reconsider his Messianic claims? He would not consider as punishable what Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, the Jewish crowd that asked for his crucifixion, what the Roman soldiers did. On their judgement he would only consider how they reacted afterwards.

Here what one has in Isaiah 53:6 ( ” the Lord accepted his prayers ( Note: of Jesus ) for the iniquities of us all ” ) and in Isaiah 53:12 ( ” for he ( Note: Jesus )bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors ” ) would apply to Jesus. Why? Because on the cross he said in Luke 23:34: ” Father, forgive them,for they do not know what they are doing. ”

The Jewish Interpretation f Isaiah 53:10

The Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:10 is:

” And the Lord wished to crush HIM, ( My note: where crush the servant= crush the Jewish people )

He made him ill; if his soul would acknowledge guilt,( My Note: if the servant=Jewish people would admit having sinned and repent ) he shall have descendants [or, he shall see progeny], he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. ”

The King James Translation

Isaiah 53:10( KJV ):

” Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise HIM ( My Note: meaning the Messiah ); he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an OFFERING for SIN, ( My Note: the Messiah will be a GUILT OFFERING or Offering for Sin ) he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. ”

The analysis of Messiahtruth(a Jewish website) concerning Isaiah 53:10:

” Significant discrepancies exist between the Jewish rendition and that of the KJV.

The portion of the verse that follows the initial declaration about G-d punishing the servant is constructed as a conditional statement, namely, IF (A) THEN (B). In other words, if Condition A is satisfied, then Outcome B will occur. The first significant discrepancy encountered between the two renditions of this verse is in the phrase “… if his soul would acknowledge guilt …” from the Jewish translation, and “… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …” from the KJV rendition. The statement in this phrase represents Condition A.

The KJV translation casts the phrase in such a way as to continue with its message of a VICARIOUS ATONEMENT by the SERVANT – a CONCEPT that is ANATHEMIC with respect to the TEACHINGS of the HEBREW BIBLE, wherein it is strictly forbidden. ”

The problem stems from the KJV translation of the Hebrew term ASHAM as an OFFERING for SIN, a word that has TWO distinct applications in the Hebrew Bible.

First, it is used to refer to a GUILT OFFERING brought by a SINNER for the atonement of any one of a number of sins committed with intent (Lev 5:15; Num 6:12).

Second, it is used to refer to a SIN or an INIQUITY committed with INTENT (e.g., Jer 51:5; Pr 14:9). In the correct context of the Hebrew phrase, and being consistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, it is impossible for someone to bring himself or herself as a guilt offering. ”

The Dilemma of saying the Servant=JEWISH PEOPLE HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE GUILT:

The word asham which means 2 things ” guilt offering “ and ” sin commited with intent “. So Messiahtruth says it has to be the second. To say ” his soul would be a GUILT OFFERING ” is against the OT is true in the sense that humans were never offered ( sacrified ) for guilt or sin. Only sheep and goats.

But that contradicts the idea in Isaiah 53 that the servant is INNOCENT. If that is so, then why acknowledge guilt? Guilty of WHAT? If the servant=Jewish people, according to their interpretation, is being PERSECUTED by the Gentiles. What sins did the servant=Jewish people do to merit it? And if they did and have to repent, then did they not bring punishment upon themselves by the Gentiles? But then that goes against the idea in Isaiah 53 that he is innocent.

It could have been other Sins of which they were Guilty,Minor Sins

I don’t have anything against that idea. It could very well mean that the servant ( Jewish people ) has to repent of sins that in no way merit persecution by the non-Jews ( by the Nazis and Communists for example ). But that still does not solve the problem posed in Isaiah 53:6 by making Isaiah 53:1-8 means it is the Gentiles speaking.

Both Sides regarding Isaiah 53:

Michael Brown,a Jewish believer in Jesus certainly knows the arguments concerning Isaiah 53, he has addressed them in his book Answering Jewish Objectons to Jesus, vol. 3. I just addressed the most important aspects. In his website he answers many details concerning Isaiah 53, though the book is more thorough. The general link to objections is:

http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/answers_to_objections

It is very, very interesting: it is divided into various Jewish objections to Jesus:

1.Theological

2.Messianic

3.Historical

4.General

5.New Testament

6.Traditional Objections

For Isaiah 53:

http://www.ilifetv.com/thinkitthru/OBJmessianicPF.htm

The homepage is:

http://www.icnministries.org/

 

Etes vous vraiment sauvés?

Paul Washer

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/s0S8MTcGHXI&hl=fr_FR&fs=1&

Message radical de Paul Washer. Etes vous vraiment sauvés? Ecoutez l’intégralité du message pour en avoir l’assurance.

L'Islamophobie:Irrationnelle ou Rationnelle?

Le mot PHOBIE signifie “peur irrationnelle”,en grec.ISLAMOPHOBIE signifie,litteralement “la crainte irrationnelle de l’islam.”Comme j’avais dit avant les musulmans,meme les intellectuels musulmans,utilise le mot ISLAMOPHOBIE de facon plus ample:

1.Pour etre la meme chose que le RACISME contre les musulmans(malgre le fait que les musulmans ne sont pas une RACE).
2.Contre toute critique intellectuelle de Mahomet et le Coran (qui va contre la LIBERTE D’EXPRESSION).
3.Pour designer des incitations de haine contre les musulmans.
4.Pour designer des actes de discrimination contre les musulmans(ce qui est autre chose:la MUSULMANOPHOBIE,semblable a la JUDEOPHOBIE.)
5.Alors,on doit passer une loi qui fait de l’islamophobie un CRIME,comme l’est la judeophobie,l’homophobie,le racisme.

C’est dans mon article:”Comment on vous manipule avec le mot islamophobie”:

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/05/comment-on-vous-manipule-avec-le-mot-islamophobie/

QUEL ISLAM?

Il y a DEUX groupes qui disent savoir ce qu’est le VRAI islam.Un groupe dit que l’islam:

A.Que le VRAI islam est pour la paix,les droits de l’homme,le respect des non-musulmans,CONTRE les terroristes musulmans(Hamas,Al-Qaida,les Talibans,etc).

B.L’autre groupe dit que le VRAI islam est pour la CHARIA(loi islamique),et que Hamas,Al-Qaida,etc sont des heros.La loi islamique es pour:la DISCRIMINATION LEGAL des NON-MUSULMANS,la mort pour l’apostate,etc,contre les droits de l’homme.

ET QUOI?

Et si le groupe B a raison,si l’islam est comme il le represente?Si c’est vrai que LEUR interpretation du coran et de Mahomet est veridique?Alors la peur de l’islam N’EST PAS irrationelle, elle est belle et bien rationnelle,comme la PEUR du:
1.FASCISME
2.NAZISME
3.COMMUNISME

COMMENT SAVOIR SI UN MUSULMAN EST VRAIMENT POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME

Demandez-lui s’il est d’accord qu’on puisse parler et ecrire de facon intellectuelle CONTRE MAHOMET et SANS etre persecute,puni,par exemple:dire qu’il n’etait pas un prophete parce qu’il a execute 700 hommes juifs,qui etaient des prisonniers, et avoir vendu leurs femmes et enfants comme des ESCLAVES,etc.

S’il HESITE a dire OUI tout de suite,commence a poser des conditions ou dit NON,il n’est pas pour les DROITS de L’HOMME.

PAT CONDELL(athee britannique tres connu):

Regardez la video en anglais:”The Myth of Islamophobia”(deja regarde par PLUS de 154.000):

La première pierre de la Grande mosquée de Marseille a été posée

La future grande mosquee de Marseille

La première pierre de la Grande mosquée de Marseille a été posée jeudi dans le nord de la ville, marquant une nouvelle étape de ce projet au long cours qui doit devenir l’un des plus grands édifices musulmans de France, a constaté un journaliste de l’AFP. “Si Marseille a ses mosquées, il fallait une mosquée significative, une grande mosquée, les catholiques ont la cathédrale et la basilique, les juifs ont la grande synagogue”, tout comme les bouddhistes et les protestants ont leur propre grand édifice religieux, a déclaré le maire (UMP) de Marseille, Jean-Claude Gaudin.

LA SUITE SUR lcm.fr

The Trinity and what the Nature/Essence of God is

la trinite selon Durer

Here I include some old material but only for the convenience of new readers to the blog and refreshing of knowledge of older readers.

About God being One

We have the famous Shema Yisroel ( Hear,O Israel ) which religious Jews pray everyday.

Deuteronomy  6:4-9:

“ Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is ECHOD ( one ). You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today will be on your heart. You will teach them diligently to your children, and will talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You will bind them as a sign on your hand, and they will be as frontlets between your eyes. You will write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. ”

HOW THE WORD ECHOD ( ONE ) IS USED IN THE OT:

The Hebrew word ECHOD can also be used to mean a PLURALITY in a UNITY, like in:

Genesis 2:24:

” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become ECHOD. ” That is in essence what the Trinity says:

1. That there is a plurality in the unity of God.

2. That the ECHOD or oneness of God exists in 3 persons because they all have the same NATURE or ESSENCE of God.

God is like a Triangle

Jesus said:

” What is impossible for man, is possible for God. ”

He was a literary genius who had a way with words, like: ” Everything is possible to he who believes ” and ” It is better to give than to receive. ” Now God is like a triangle, the whole triangle being God and the triangle has 3 points.

Each point is EQUALLY DISTANT from each other, the sides being equal and one point would be God the Father, another God the Son and another God the Holy Spirit: one God but 3 distinct persons.

A Mathematical Argument for the Trinity

In the Athanasian Creed it is stated that there is one God but 3 persons and each person is God, yet God the Father is not the same as God the Son and so on. An argument used against the Trinity is that of MATHEMATICAL ARITHMETIC:

1 + 1 + 1= 3

In mathematics the rules are true, valid and logical. “But what is impossible for man, is possible for God”as Jesus said. What if God goes by mathematical rules that are different but just as valid, true and logical as that of arithmetic?

And Another Mathematical Argument

We have:

2 x 2 x 2= 8

3 x 3 x 3= 27

But when we the entity of one,just 1, similar to GOD is ONE, we have:
1 x 1 x 1= 1

And Another Mathematical Argument

In mathematics we have the concept called infinity, symbolized by something like oo, but together. God can be said to be an infinity: infinite in power, goodness and knowledge, so:

INFINITY + INFINITY + INFINITY= INFINITY
oo + oo + oo = oo

Here we have an argument based on arithmetic.

What do you mean by “Having the Same Nature or Essence”?

It means:

A) ONLY God can do certain things than NO ONE else can. Only God can create SOMETHING out of NOTHING. There we have the BIG BANG theory of the origin of the universe, which is confirmed by all the available data we have today. SATAN can NOT create something out of nothing,he uses material ALREADY in existence.

B ) ONLY God can DESTROY something FOREVER. SATAN can kill somebody but God can easily RESTORE him to life, and Satan can do nothing about.

C ) ONLY God can NEVER be destroyed. Everything else can, even Satan. So the 3 persons of the Trinity have that same essence or nature.

Again I have given you mathematical arguments that are valid where 3 entities can be combined and yet still result in the SAME entity.

3 Passages in the OT where we have 2 Yahwehs at the Same Time

The OT says Yahweh is ONE, but yet we have 3 passages in it with 2 Yahwehs.Why did not the Jews change them or take them out if the were in the habit of changing the OT, as Muslims claim? The reason is they RESPECTED the OT too much.

As you know,in the Trinity we have One God and 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In the OT we have 3 passages where TWO YAHWENS exist at the SAME time, in other words in the OT God is one,yet we have 2 persons or beings who are Yahweh and are separate:read :

1. Genesis 9:23-26

2. Zachariah 3:1-2

3. Zachariah 2:10-11

Great Debate

It is “Does God Exist?” between David Wood(ex-atheist,Christian,of answeringmuslims.com) vs John Loftus(atheist,ex-Christian):

A Great Book

It is “The Case for Israel” by Jewish intellectual Alan Dershowitz(American):intelligent,informed.You may agree with him or not but he deserves attention.Here is the book(Free)even though it is incomplete:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dunx_i1P6fMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dershowitz+and+anti-israel+is+anti+semitism&source=bl&ots=uo5rCwxjhy&sig=W-LaAjQ8k3ieg5jSNgQxRH3TTnM&hl=en&ei=WJP2S6KbOIOdlgf4hLDVCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy

Ron Paul,Jedi of Republic?

The unbelievable truth about money created out of thin air by the evil banking system. Let us wake up and invest our money where it will not profit the greedy speculators, eg Gold and Silver.

Visit our website http://www.wyargent.com/

Première cellule artificielle vivante!

Des scientifiques américains ont réussi à développer la première cellule vivante de synthèse.Les chercheurs ont construit “une bactérie  de logiciel génétique” et l’ont transplanté dans une cellule vivante.Le microbe résultant alors observé  s’est comportéecomme l’espèce «dictée» par l’ADN synthétique.

L’avancée technologique, publiée dans la revue Science, a été saluée comme historique par la communauté scientifique, mais les critiques disent qu’il ya des dangers posés par les organismes synthétiques.Les chercheurs espèrent à terme arriver à la conception des cellules bactériennes pour produire des médicaments et des carburants et même absorber les gaz à effet de serre.

Du point de vue chrétien, une fois de plus on constate que le “bien commun” prime sur le respect de la vie et d’un point de vue éthique on ne peut que s’alarmer contre ce mélange hybride entre technologie et organismes vivants.

la suite sur lepost.fr