It appears as though David Wood has taken umbrage to my rebuke and concern regarding his recent unchristian behaviour which can be viewed here:
Recently David Wood accused me of hypocrisy and perversion…yes, PERVERSION!!!
My initial comment to him was:
“@David Wood
An absolute misrepresentation of my blog posting
Clearly my rebuke left a bee in David's bonnet.
David attempting a deflection is not the way...you should have just admitted your unchristian behaviour and left aside any dents to your ego after I ( a Muslim) rebuked you
Note...Christians even agree with me on this.
I'm not sure if I will dignify this with a response.
David...stop digging.
Peace”
However as Christians (yet again) are unwilling to point out the validity of my rebuke and the concern regarding his “obnoxious” behaviour it is timely to make a few further points of rebuke and refutation as well as ask Christians (including Wood) to self-reflect based on the initial message.
His accusation of hypocrisy is because I objected to his unchristian behaviour and did not rebuking the Muslims who threatened the south park (according to Wood’s partial information)
For David’s information I actually sent a comment of rebuke to the Muslims who threatened the South Park duo
Is that hypocrisy…no…it is consistency. Rebuking both parties in error…Wood and the RevolutionMuslim team
Moreover it is a valid expectation to rebuke somebody you know rather than somebody you don’t…I don’t know the Muslims who threatened the South Park team BUT I and my associates still rebuked them.
The rebuke concerning David’s unchristian behaviour was firmer and more visible because I know David, I’ve had dialogue with him in the past and I know his colleagues and associates…some of them rather well. Surely you spend more time rebuking somebody within your circle of associates…and that is why my rebuke of David Wood was carried out.
It makes sense…right?
David doesn’t get it though
David, in a feeble attempt to deflect and detract attention away from his unchristian behaviour goes on a rampage and attacks one of his own…myself!
It is not the way, David.
Now it gets worse as David accuses me of perversion for some convoluted reason based entirely on semantics. I felt this was childish on the part of David
David utilizes his fertile imagination, dishonesty and a childish nature to have semantics oriented dig at me.
He claims I was complaining about pornography on his blog BUT my audio presentation nor the official blog posting contains the word “pornography”…so David is either lying or going to surplus sites where the title of the posting has been changed
If he stuck to the actual material itself then he would realise the word “pornography” is not even used but he gets mileage out of it so he does not care either way.
He produces a convoluted insult against me based on this straw man. But the point still stands…in the material the word “pornography” is not used to describe the nudity David show cases on his blog…this is a classic deflection based on intellectual dishonesty by David
Nevertheless the intellectual dishonesty continues as he builds his immature semantics-based attack on me. He goes to put forward definitions of the word “pornography” and he selectively chose the one which teaches the word to mean something which sexually entices. He then rather school-boyishly proceeds to accuse me of a perversion, astonishing!
It is absolutely astonishing to note an adult would sink to such depraved levels of manipulation… effectively that is all it was.
But embarrassingly for David, he could not even be honest with the definition of the word “pornography”. He withheld the full definition as the word can also mean “lurid” and “sensational”…why did David hide this from his audience?…why did David hide the full definition of the word and manipulate the meaning to pursue his personal agenda to save face? Why even focus attention on a word not even in the content material? Dishonesty and potential to manipulate?
Did his post contain lurid material? Yes!
Wood tries to pass it off as art…OK David, show it to the church congregation this Sunday at your local church…you won’t because you know it is unchristian material
Art or no art. It is still unchristian!
In fact this is a secularist (atheist) response…passing immorality off as art in order to get under the radar…David, are you a secularist now? Will we be seeing gay church leaders at your church any time soon…of course not!
Last one; David if liberals pass of insults to the Holy Spirit as art would you claim it is fine and feature it on your blog…I don’t think so…so why feature material which is unchristian (nudity) and explain it away by “art” when you are pressed on it. Be consistent David…it seems as though the word “hypocrisy” is being highlighted here.
David also commits the fallacy of false equivocation as he claims my objection to the SP based on offense can be projected onto the Arab pagans who had their idols destroyed by the Prophet Muhammed (p)
OK.. So does David want to be consistent and apply the same reasoning against Jesus for his (physical) attack on the money changers? Were the money changers not also offended?
In addition what about the individuals Moses and his army killed? What about Abraham breaking an idol? Well, individuals defending these Prophets would simply remark they had a mandate from God.
So if Jesus, Abraham and Moses had permission from God to behave in the way they did then why not apply the same reasoning to the instance of Muhammed destroying the idols?
Who are we to argue with God?
Nevertheless, the question backfires at Wood as he has showcased material featuring nudity on his blog…did God give him permission to do this?…Of course not!
At the accusation of not having concern forth victims of Muslim aggression:
My friend (Minoria, a Christian) answers well…”I believe our friend Yahya is against those atrocities but perhaps thinks commenting on them would do no good”
Certainly, commenting on these atrocities on Wood’s blog simply results in a bunch of Christian haters hounding me and this cheapens the severity of the hurt and pain the victims are going through.
It is also of use to add that David Wood’s trawling of the internet in order to find and upload negative stories about Muslims seems insincere as he only seems to showcase them to have a dig at Muslims and Islam rather than any genuine concern for the victims…surely if he had a sense of a Samaritan and had genuine concern he would also be show casing the hurt Christian clergy have cause thousands of individuals through the abuse scandal. It must be said; reasonable individuals are viewing David Wood as somebody who panders to hate rather than an individual who has genuine concern.
I think David knows in his heart of hearts that his behaviour has been out of line…this is inferred from David’s attempt to censor my invitation to his partner (Nabeel Qureshi) to review his material and rebuke him if it is unchristian…if David was fully convinced his material and behaviour was fully sanctioned by Christianity then he would have had no reason to censor an invitation of inspection and review
It is sad that David Wood’s ego blinds him from self-reflection and rebuke. I would ask him to ponder upon Matthew 23:12
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (NIV)
If you have any questions about this posting then please email me
Yahya Snow
Friday, 30 April 2010
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Sam Shamoun Asked to Stand Down: An Open Letter to AnsweringIslam by Yahya Snow
Recently, one of my colleagues alerted me to some harrassment and insults he had received at the hands of Sam Shamoun.
Sadly, this is not an isolated case; I have personally been the subject of Sam Shamoun's harrasment and hounding (as well as other colleagues of mine). This is far from the behaviour of a gentleman. My colleagues and I, do not warrant such abuse.
We appreciate Sam Shamoun has a history of misdemeanours and has left a trail of insults, hatred and name-calling directed at Muslims and their faith but one would have thought Shamoun would have matured with age (the man is around the age of forty now); given his recent repertoire of abuse this clearly is not the case.
Recently I rebuked Sam Shamoun's colleague (David Wood) due to his "obnoxious" behaviour; this rebuke only came about due to the unwilling nature of those (Christians) around Mr Wood despite my prompting that they need to rebuke him as his behaviour was clearly out of control (dare I say...unChristian). This rebukes seems tohave had apositive effect on some ofthe Christians in his circle.
Shamoun's situation carries parrallels, though Shamoun's case is much more severe due to the prolonged nature of his venom...I ask the Answering Islam team to rebuke Sam Shamoun, better still in my view there is no place for somebody of Shamoun's disposition in the field of apologetics; perhaps now is the time for Samuel Green or a senior colleague to say "thanks Sam but no thanks" and part company.
Surely now is an opportune time to dispense with the services of Sam Shamoun, there are a number of young Christian apologists who could fill the void quite easily without clogging it with the abysmal hate Sam Shamoun engenders.
Perhaps more worrying to those who hold the Bbile in high esteem, Shamoun seems to be interpolating his own wording into the Bible; he is editing the Bible in order to support his arguments. This is not on!
The choice is certainly down to Mr Green and his colleagues but the view from the trenches is that of Shamoun portraying Christianity and Christian values in a poor light. To be frank, Christians and non-Christinas are being repelled by his behaviour and these calls of a rebuke are certainly in merit of swift and decisive action.
The Nadir Ahmed-Sam Shamoun days are well and truly over...if only others can realise this reality and aid us in elevating the discourse to a higher (and more noble) ground.
Dare we imagine Sam Shamoun realising the awkward position he puts his colleagues and his fellow Christians and falling on his sword and leaving the scene in an upright manner.
By Yahya Snow
Sadly, this is not an isolated case; I have personally been the subject of Sam Shamoun's harrasment and hounding (as well as other colleagues of mine). This is far from the behaviour of a gentleman. My colleagues and I, do not warrant such abuse.
We appreciate Sam Shamoun has a history of misdemeanours and has left a trail of insults, hatred and name-calling directed at Muslims and their faith but one would have thought Shamoun would have matured with age (the man is around the age of forty now); given his recent repertoire of abuse this clearly is not the case.
Recently I rebuked Sam Shamoun's colleague (David Wood) due to his "obnoxious" behaviour; this rebuke only came about due to the unwilling nature of those (Christians) around Mr Wood despite my prompting that they need to rebuke him as his behaviour was clearly out of control (dare I say...unChristian). This rebukes seems tohave had apositive effect on some ofthe Christians in his circle.
Shamoun's situation carries parrallels, though Shamoun's case is much more severe due to the prolonged nature of his venom...I ask the Answering Islam team to rebuke Sam Shamoun, better still in my view there is no place for somebody of Shamoun's disposition in the field of apologetics; perhaps now is the time for Samuel Green or a senior colleague to say "thanks Sam but no thanks" and part company.
Surely now is an opportune time to dispense with the services of Sam Shamoun, there are a number of young Christian apologists who could fill the void quite easily without clogging it with the abysmal hate Sam Shamoun engenders.
Perhaps more worrying to those who hold the Bbile in high esteem, Shamoun seems to be interpolating his own wording into the Bible; he is editing the Bible in order to support his arguments. This is not on!
The choice is certainly down to Mr Green and his colleagues but the view from the trenches is that of Shamoun portraying Christianity and Christian values in a poor light. To be frank, Christians and non-Christinas are being repelled by his behaviour and these calls of a rebuke are certainly in merit of swift and decisive action.
The Nadir Ahmed-Sam Shamoun days are well and truly over...if only others can realise this reality and aid us in elevating the discourse to a higher (and more noble) ground.
Dare we imagine Sam Shamoun realising the awkward position he puts his colleagues and his fellow Christians and falling on his sword and leaving the scene in an upright manner.
By Yahya Snow
It is Simon from AnsweringMuslims...AGAIN :(
This time he says:
"burn in hell -----".
He calls Islam a "sick religion" and "evil" (despite my article showing Islam to have a superior teaching concerning alcohol than Christianity)
"everyday something new pops up in the news about how these bastards"
Simon needs to calm down before he does a hernia but the question that must be asked is why do the Christian administration of the blog approve his comments?
Recently I declined a comment due to the comment containing an insult directed to the Bible...who has higher standards?...
The Muslim???...the one who is supposedly following the devil???
Simon, please view this article to realise Islam is not from the devil:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Quran%20is%20not%20from%20Satan
"burn in hell -----".
He calls Islam a "sick religion" and "evil" (despite my article showing Islam to have a superior teaching concerning alcohol than Christianity)
"everyday something new pops up in the news about how these bastards"
Simon needs to calm down before he does a hernia but the question that must be asked is why do the Christian administration of the blog approve his comments?
Recently I declined a comment due to the comment containing an insult directed to the Bible...who has higher standards?...
The Muslim???...the one who is supposedly following the devil???
Simon, please view this article to realise Islam is not from the devil:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Quran%20is%20not%20from%20Satan
Friday, 23 April 2010
David Wood's Behaviour Rebuked by Muslims and Christians
Original video from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnmTvWnwiQs
For more info on this please see the post directly below
Thursday, 22 April 2010
David Wood Displaying Nudity and Insulting Muslims, Hindus and Mormons
Wood uploaded a post on his blog showing a clip from SP insulting Muslims, Hindus and Mormons; he also displays the submission video (which contains nudity)
And this man is Christian??? Where is Nabeel to admonish him??? Where is Negeen to admonish him??? Minoria??? Any Christian with a backbone and decency would rebuke him...
Here is my latest post (which I submitted to his comment section) just in case he decides to censor it:
Meant to have read
Why was a clip from SP shown on this blog
Also...I have just clicked on another vid from this post...I had to stop watching as it was displaying nudity (or semi-nudity..I didnt watch it all...I would not ask others to view it either)
What is going on here,David?
Are you guys getting some sort of gratification from this???
You do realise JESUS would not support this post.
The one who made this post (David Wood) has absolutely breached any religious trust he had, furthermore he has lost all religious credibility he had (if he had any in the first instance).
How can you even dishonour what you (Christians) hold in sanctity by displaying this material on a blog which simulataneously attempts to discuss religious Books such as the Bible and religious figures such as Jesus. Surely this is not the place for such obscene material?
I own the NIV Bible and I can honestly say I do not even undress in view of it nor watch a Hollywood movie/listen to music whilst it is on display. I guess i am old fashioned...respect and decency is clearly close to extinction now :(
People; I appeal to what shreds of piety we have left...surely postings like this one do not belong on a blog discussing theology and even preaching a religion.
I can honsetly see why Atheism is becoming more appealing in the world as those who represent faith work assiduously in undermining faith...this post being an example of this!
The one who made the post should hang his head in shame
The sychophants and spineless ones amongst us who are afraid to lend critique to the one who made this post (David Wood) ought to take a long hard look at themselves and develop some fortitude
(Note: he did not allow the post to be approved...why?)
Nabeel Qureshi and other Christians...please do the decent the thing by rebuking him and reconsider any affiliations you have with him
Here is another example of Wood's anti-Christian nature (I appealedto a Christian, Nabeel, to rebuke him concerning this too):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/question-for-nabeel-qureshi-concerning.html
And this man is Christian??? Where is Nabeel to admonish him??? Where is Negeen to admonish him??? Minoria??? Any Christian with a backbone and decency would rebuke him...
Here is my latest post (which I submitted to his comment section) just in case he decides to censor it:
Meant to have read
Why was a clip from SP shown on this blog
Also...I have just clicked on another vid from this post...I had to stop watching as it was displaying nudity (or semi-nudity..I didnt watch it all...I would not ask others to view it either)
What is going on here,David?
Are you guys getting some sort of gratification from this???
You do realise JESUS would not support this post.
The one who made this post (David Wood) has absolutely breached any religious trust he had, furthermore he has lost all religious credibility he had (if he had any in the first instance).
How can you even dishonour what you (Christians) hold in sanctity by displaying this material on a blog which simulataneously attempts to discuss religious Books such as the Bible and religious figures such as Jesus. Surely this is not the place for such obscene material?
I own the NIV Bible and I can honestly say I do not even undress in view of it nor watch a Hollywood movie/listen to music whilst it is on display. I guess i am old fashioned...respect and decency is clearly close to extinction now :(
People; I appeal to what shreds of piety we have left...surely postings like this one do not belong on a blog discussing theology and even preaching a religion.
I can honsetly see why Atheism is becoming more appealing in the world as those who represent faith work assiduously in undermining faith...this post being an example of this!
The one who made the post should hang his head in shame
The sychophants and spineless ones amongst us who are afraid to lend critique to the one who made this post (David Wood) ought to take a long hard look at themselves and develop some fortitude
(Note: he did not allow the post to be approved...why?)
Nabeel Qureshi and other Christians...please do the decent the thing by rebuking him and reconsider any affiliations you have with him
Here is another example of Wood's anti-Christian nature (I appealedto a Christian, Nabeel, to rebuke him concerning this too):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/question-for-nabeel-qureshi-concerning.html
Sami Zaatari: Southpark and and Islamophobic Media
The the group Zaatari was speaking of are named RevolutionMuslim.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Debate Review: Is Biblical Christianity a Religion of Peace (Daniel Scot Vs Nadir Ahmed) by Yahya Snow
Daniel Scot’s opening statement was difficult to follow and seemed to lack a structured flow. His opening statement was something out of a preacher’s manual, quite literally the man was preaching Christianity rather than producing an opening statement related to the debate topic. He veered off topic and became embroiled in a lengthy dig at Islam.
The man focussed his attention on spiritual peace rather than the material peace which was the subject of the debate.
Scot, a very, very slow starter, eventually got round to the inevitable and got to the point of bringing Jesus as evidence that Christianity is a religion of peace. Sadly we had to wait for the last few moments of the opening statement to hear him bring a quote which won the debate for Pastor Daniel Scot and all right-minded individuals; whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword. Sadly, most of us would have dozed off by then.
Scot’s presentation style is certainly a cure for insomnia, he was simply reading his presentation from a screen. He lacked charisma, bereft of a shift in tone and was all too wanting of a shift in inflexion. He was simply monotone.
Nadir Ahmed’s opening statement began with admonishing Scot for veering off topic. Ahmed subsequently proceeded to address Scot’s points on Islam. He then left the moral high ground and descended in a butchered chaos that only Nadir Ahmed can bring.
Ahmed wastes no time getting stuck into Chrisitianity, clearly the man still had a bee in his bonnet from his previous debate with Shamoun. Ahmed seemed to be motivated by a personal agenda and emulsifies his presentation with a less than sincere sounding apology to the Christians if they find it “offensive”, he somehow tries to justify and pacify any potential hurt Christian feelings by spouting “ I hope you entertatin it (my presentation) because we entertained a lot of tough questions about Islam”; it seemed Ahmed was in the mood for revenge, did he get his revenge?
Well, he threw everything, including the kitchen sink at the Bible and this was a premeditated attack. Ahmed did not hold back, he opened and manipulated the Old Testament to the hilt. He had no regard for the venue (a church) or a predominantly Christian audience. Disresctful!
Ominously he declares “ I don’t want to misrepresent t#what the Bible teaches" but then proceed to butcher it with his bogus exegesis. He brings up various passages and misses the fact that they are descriptive passages rather than prescriptive passages.
The rest of the debate followed this pattern; Nadir, in his animated style pressed Scot with his straw man arguments and shock value whilst Scot incompetently attempted to answer.
Essentially the debate was a waste of time; nobody learnt anything new from the debate, it was a silly debate topic as everybody (except Nadir) knew Christianity was a religion of peace before and after the debate
It was obvious Scot was a Pastor thrust into the debate arena whilst it was clear Nadir Ahmed was far more experienced. Nadir Ahmed picked the wrong debate topic, he was presented with a lamb (Scot) but unfortunately for Ahmed, due to the debate topic, he was not presented with a knife.
If Nadir had debated him on the Trinity then we would all be discussing a resounding victory and seeing Nadir as a hero rather than being resuscitated due to the coma inducing nature of it all.
Scot was hopelessly inept and was only saved by the fact that it was obvious Christianity is a religion of peace.
Ahmed, clearly the more skilled debater was never going to convince us that Christianity is not a religion of peace.
No religion is inherently violent and all religions espouse peace including Christianity. A silly debate topic. I would link to the debate but I care for your sanity and time.
The man focussed his attention on spiritual peace rather than the material peace which was the subject of the debate.
Scot, a very, very slow starter, eventually got round to the inevitable and got to the point of bringing Jesus as evidence that Christianity is a religion of peace. Sadly we had to wait for the last few moments of the opening statement to hear him bring a quote which won the debate for Pastor Daniel Scot and all right-minded individuals; whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword. Sadly, most of us would have dozed off by then.
Scot’s presentation style is certainly a cure for insomnia, he was simply reading his presentation from a screen. He lacked charisma, bereft of a shift in tone and was all too wanting of a shift in inflexion. He was simply monotone.
Nadir Ahmed’s opening statement began with admonishing Scot for veering off topic. Ahmed subsequently proceeded to address Scot’s points on Islam. He then left the moral high ground and descended in a butchered chaos that only Nadir Ahmed can bring.
Ahmed wastes no time getting stuck into Chrisitianity, clearly the man still had a bee in his bonnet from his previous debate with Shamoun. Ahmed seemed to be motivated by a personal agenda and emulsifies his presentation with a less than sincere sounding apology to the Christians if they find it “offensive”, he somehow tries to justify and pacify any potential hurt Christian feelings by spouting “ I hope you entertatin it (my presentation) because we entertained a lot of tough questions about Islam”; it seemed Ahmed was in the mood for revenge, did he get his revenge?
Well, he threw everything, including the kitchen sink at the Bible and this was a premeditated attack. Ahmed did not hold back, he opened and manipulated the Old Testament to the hilt. He had no regard for the venue (a church) or a predominantly Christian audience. Disresctful!
Ominously he declares “ I don’t want to misrepresent t#what the Bible teaches" but then proceed to butcher it with his bogus exegesis. He brings up various passages and misses the fact that they are descriptive passages rather than prescriptive passages.
The rest of the debate followed this pattern; Nadir, in his animated style pressed Scot with his straw man arguments and shock value whilst Scot incompetently attempted to answer.
Essentially the debate was a waste of time; nobody learnt anything new from the debate, it was a silly debate topic as everybody (except Nadir) knew Christianity was a religion of peace before and after the debate
It was obvious Scot was a Pastor thrust into the debate arena whilst it was clear Nadir Ahmed was far more experienced. Nadir Ahmed picked the wrong debate topic, he was presented with a lamb (Scot) but unfortunately for Ahmed, due to the debate topic, he was not presented with a knife.
If Nadir had debated him on the Trinity then we would all be discussing a resounding victory and seeing Nadir as a hero rather than being resuscitated due to the coma inducing nature of it all.
Scot was hopelessly inept and was only saved by the fact that it was obvious Christianity is a religion of peace.
Ahmed, clearly the more skilled debater was never going to convince us that Christianity is not a religion of peace.
No religion is inherently violent and all religions espouse peace including Christianity. A silly debate topic. I would link to the debate but I care for your sanity and time.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
David Wood Out of His Depth on Surah 65:4
YahyaSnow — April 18, 2010 — Link to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4IuD...
Link to my (yahya snow) article on Surah 65:4:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co...
David Wood clearly misleads his audience on a number of issues:
No tafsir writer agreed with him, NONE of them mention sex withprepubescent girls, despite Wood's desperate pleading.
Wood hides knowldege concerning the dolls hadith
Wood claims I have never read 65:4 yet I have written an article on the verse! More worryingly; his colleagues knew this and I have sent links to the article to Wood's blog in the past!!!
Wood adulterates tafsir literature.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Fair Christian Defends the Hijab!
My friend (Jack) from TogetherForPeace speaks out against hatred against the hijab. Note, I apologise for some of his language, he was emotional and I can personally vouch for Jack as a fair man. The Christian hate preachers which this site has been encountering over the years (and some of their followers) can learn a great deal from Jack.
Please note, Jack is a well respected Christian and is not amongst those who waste their time on anti-Muslim hate sites. I just hope this inspires other Christians to speak out against haters amongst the Christian community.
I really hope this can inspire some Christians to stand up against Christians who are picking on Muslims on the internet...it requires backbone, courage and a stand up type of person to do this. Are you capable of this?
God bless Jack and God bless all fair people. May Allah guide him to Islam. Ameen
Please note, Jack is a well respected Christian and is not amongst those who waste their time on anti-Muslim hate sites. I just hope this inspires other Christians to speak out against haters amongst the Christian community.
I really hope this can inspire some Christians to stand up against Christians who are picking on Muslims on the internet...it requires backbone, courage and a stand up type of person to do this. Are you capable of this?
God bless Jack and God bless all fair people. May Allah guide him to Islam. Ameen
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Question for Nabeel Qureshi concerning David Wood
This comment (containing a question for Nabeel Qureshi) was posted on David Wood's most recent post. Just in case he does not approve it...here it is:
Hey Nabeel do you support this insensitive post (by David Wood) which is tantamount to bullying
What has this lady done to get the "David Wood treatment". Come on people...be FAIR!
I would imagine this lady has enough on her plate and hardly needs David Wood rubbing salt in the wounds
You guys are evangelising Christianity with postings such as these...???
Do us all a favour David
And how about Nabeel thinking long and hard about his partner's behaviour...Nabeel do you honestly support David's behaviour?
I ask the same question to Minoria, Hugh and any other individual who has the capacity to be fair.
Don't let your theological scuffles boil over to utter hatred!
Now this is certainly sad. :(
I pray God helps this lady and protects her from those with malice inside them. Amen
Nabeel PLEASE answer this question. Thanks
In my view this is utter hatred and singling out...does this lady deserve this? Are we a pack of wolves who will hound a lady simply because she happens to be a Muslim?
I abhor David's post which can be found here:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/04/legal-jihad-exposed-woman-suing-judge.html
Essentially David puts this post out there irresponsibly without a consideration for the lady's feelings. Why even put the post up...what use does it serve? Really???
Sad, irresponsible and UNCHRISTIAN!
I doubt David would have made such a posting if it was concerning a nun...
What is that saying...treat others as...
Nabeel...over to you...be honest and fair
Hey Nabeel do you support this insensitive post (by David Wood) which is tantamount to bullying
What has this lady done to get the "David Wood treatment". Come on people...be FAIR!
I would imagine this lady has enough on her plate and hardly needs David Wood rubbing salt in the wounds
You guys are evangelising Christianity with postings such as these...???
Do us all a favour David
And how about Nabeel thinking long and hard about his partner's behaviour...Nabeel do you honestly support David's behaviour?
I ask the same question to Minoria, Hugh and any other individual who has the capacity to be fair.
Don't let your theological scuffles boil over to utter hatred!
Now this is certainly sad. :(
I pray God helps this lady and protects her from those with malice inside them. Amen
Nabeel PLEASE answer this question. Thanks
In my view this is utter hatred and singling out...does this lady deserve this? Are we a pack of wolves who will hound a lady simply because she happens to be a Muslim?
I abhor David's post which can be found here:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/04/legal-jihad-exposed-woman-suing-judge.html
Essentially David puts this post out there irresponsibly without a consideration for the lady's feelings. Why even put the post up...what use does it serve? Really???
Sad, irresponsible and UNCHRISTIAN!
I doubt David would have made such a posting if it was concerning a nun...
What is that saying...treat others as...
Nabeel...over to you...be honest and fair
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Astonishing Christian Claim on the angel of the Lord!
A Christian on the answeringmuslims blog/site made an astonishing claim which was full with so much manipulation/misrepresentation of the Bible (not to mention utter falsehood) that it must be challenged here. A user named leviMichael made this bizarre claim:
"The Angel of the LORD" is clearly Jesus before the incarnation; every1 in the OT testament seems to worship this Angel!
This is yet another example of the ignorance and reckless nature some Christians will sink to in order to attempt a justification of their personal belief (ie claiming an angel from the OT to be God). I have already refuted this claim and shown that this claim is not Biblical nor part of essential Christian theology here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-angel-of-lord-god.html
My question to leviMichael is can you show us all these people who were worshipping the angel of the Lord in the OT?
I'm cetain he cannot...leviMicael, next time please think before making hefty claims
Peace
"The Angel of the LORD" is clearly Jesus before the incarnation; every1 in the OT testament seems to worship this Angel!
This is yet another example of the ignorance and reckless nature some Christians will sink to in order to attempt a justification of their personal belief (ie claiming an angel from the OT to be God). I have already refuted this claim and shown that this claim is not Biblical nor part of essential Christian theology here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-angel-of-lord-god.html
My question to leviMichael is can you show us all these people who were worshipping the angel of the Lord in the OT?
I'm cetain he cannot...leviMicael, next time please think before making hefty claims
Peace
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Sam Shamoun: A Gateway to Paganism
Sam Shamoun wrongly tries to convince us an angel from the Old Testament is God...this is his personal belief which lacks evidence and logic.Shamoun is misguided. Analysis from Yahya Snow (see video and the relevant article which is directle beneath this vid)
Sam Shamoun is wrong on the angel of the Lord
Sam Shamoun's Latest Scandal
The Sam Shamoun section: Latest Sam Shamoun Articles, Videos etc
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Sam Shamoun is wrong on the angel of the Lord
Sam Shamoun's Latest Scandal
The Sam Shamoun section: Latest Sam Shamoun Articles, Videos etc
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Is The Angel of The Lord God?
The Angel of The Lord Cannot Possibly be God (by Yahya Snow)
The Bible suggests an angel cannot be God!
Hebrews 1:14: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Here, the Bible tells us angels are “sent to serve”. Clearly God is not “sent to serve” by any being. God has authority over everything thus we realise the angel of the Lord cannot possibly be God.
In addition we learn all angels are “ministering spirits”, God is not a ministering spirit therefore we can realise the angel of the Lord is not God.
Hebrews is authored by Paul. Therefore even Paul did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God.
Furthermore, Zechariah 1:12-13 shows the angel of the Lord communicating with God; the angel asks God a question and God answers the angel. Clearly this passage shows the angel not to be God as they are clearly shown to be distinct entities.
Logic proves the angel of the Lord is not God
Simple analysis of the term “angel of the Lord” proves this angel is not God.
Firstly the word “angel” is used. An angel by definition is not God. Thus we realise it is not the Lord. It is a case of stating the obvious; an angel is an angel.
Secondly, the term used highlights two distinct and separate entities, ie “the Angel” and the “Lord”; therefore the two cannot be the same entity. Therefore the angel cannot be the Lord (God).
Thirdly, the term denotes ownership, i.e. the Lord owns the angel, thus the angel cannot be the Lord. God is the Owner whilst the angel is the being which is owned. The two cannot possibly be the same.
No Biblical authority teaches the angel of the Lord to be God
Apart from the logical and Biblical case against the claim that this angel is God we can also look to the teachings of Zechariah, Moses, Jesus, John the Baptist and other Prophets; none of whom taught the angel of the Lord to be God.
Even lesser authorities in the Bible such as Paul and the four narrators of the Gospels never taught this angel to be God. There is no theological compulsion on the part of any Christian (even a Trinitarian) to believe God was/is the angel of the Lord, fundamental Christian dogma does not contain this teaching.
Gateway to paganism
Despite all of this there are still some Trinitarians looking to justify their beliefs via Biblical scripture have turned to playing on ambiguity and interpolation despite there being no logical support or Biblical authority for their claim. These groups making such paganistic claims should ponder upon the points made above as well as the implications of their claim.
The claimant does not think things through, essentially they are saying God secretively becomes His creation and does this for no apparent reason. Again, reasoning militates against them and shows them this angel is not God. The further implication is the encouragement their view gives to those who want to introduce more paganism within Christianity. What is there to stop somebody with a similar mindset to the claimants declaring “David is God” or “Melchizedek is God”? Both David and Melchizedek have enough Biblical ambiguity surrounding them for somebody to wrongfully suggest one or both of them to be God whilst “supporting” their claim with Biblical references. Basically this claim concerning the angel of the Lord is a gateway to paganism.
The arguments of those who believe this angel to be God
For fairness and thoroughness the arguments of one such claimant will be analysed and subjected to scrutiny. As Sam Shamoun is the most vocal advocate of this claim (that I have come across) then his audio presentation will be used as a sample argument for the opposition’s claims and a refutation of his view is posited.
Personal view
Personally, I find it astonishing that anybody who claims to have an attachment to Abrahamic monotheism would view an angel to be God, nevertheless I found Shamoun’s argumentation grossly unconvincing, hence my protestation in this article.
Heretical: Shamoun and those of his ilk
We must realise Shamoun’s views on the angel of the Lord would have been deemed heretical during the time of Jesus and indeed before the time of Jesus. However, we do have a culture of freedom and individualism within established religion within the West, hence views like Shamoun’s are somewhat encouraged just like new ideas such as gay priests etc being introduced into Christianity. It should be understood this is not something which should be approved of, continually looking to change or innovate new ideas into Christianity has real pitfalls. Peter Hitchens sums up this new innovative attitude; “the Church of England never sleeps in its efforts to chuck away its own heritage and abandon the principles of Christianity” [1]
Having noted that Shamoun brings new ideas or what is more traditionally termed as “heretical” ideas to the table we can discuss them within this context.
The claimants use ambiguous verses from the Bible in order to support their claims and their arguments based on such verses are extremely flimsy.
Concept of agency explains away their Biblical references
This concept teaches that an act committed by the angel can be an act carried out by God Himself.
Concept of agency explained:
Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent. [2]
However, in my view, the concept of agency is not even required to deal with the arguments presented by those who claim an angel to be God.
Numbers 22:31 and Shamoun’s editing of the verse!
One of the Biblical verses the claimants use is Numbers (22:31):
Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
Sam Shamoun actually claims this verse teaches that Balaam bows down “BEFORE” the angel of the Lord. This is a complete distortion of the verse. Nowhere does it mention bowing “before” the angel, it merely teaches us that Balaam does prostrate but the verse does not specify to whom Balaam bows down to, though it is assumed that this bowing down was to God when the context is understood.
The sad thing is Shamoun and others twist this verse. Balaam, in this verse, realises his sin upon seeing the angel of the Lord. Balaam bows down upon realising this sin.
The claimant tries to represent Balaam as worshipping the angel. This is not in the text though the context suggests that he bows down to the One who he believes can forgive him of his mistake, i.e. God. So the claimant manipulates and even CHANGES the text, Sam Shamoun (a staunch Trinitarian) makes this mistake. In fact the author (said to be Moses) does not claim the angel to be God. Surely Moses knows better than Sam Shamoun?
Shamoun fails to look further down in the chapter; after this event, the author identifies this angel as “the angel of the Lord” and not as “God” or “the Lord” (22:32 and 35) thus showing the author (said to be Moses) did not believe this angel to be God nor did he believe Balaam prostrated to the angel.
In fact, the author never claims this angel to be God. Who knows more, Sam Shamoun or the author of Numbers chapter 22 (many believe Moses wrote the Book of Numbers)?
Note: Though the author of Numbers is said to be Moses we must remember that the Bible did undergo transformation due to scribal errors and forgeries so it is intellectually dishonest to claim Moses authored the Book of Numbers in its present form. The same applies to Zechariah (mentioned later on in this article)
Judges 2:1 is explained by the concept of agency as well as context
Essentially, in Judges 2:1, God sends the angel to deliver a direct message to the people in Bokim:
The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you,
Shamoun should read the full chapter, if he had done so he would have understood this angel cannot to be God as the people of Bokim, after hearing the message presented by this angel are said to have “offered sacrifices to the Lord”; they did not offer sacrifices to the angel of the Lord but they did offer these sacrifices to God, thus showing they understood the angel NOT to be God but merely presenting a direct message from the Lord i.e. they understood the concept of agency.
When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud,
and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD. (Judges 2:4-5)
Nowhere in Judges does it claim an angel to be God.
Shamoun needs to brush up on the concept of agency as well as read the entire passage in order to get a grasp of the context.
Is Shamoun trying to tell us he knows better than the people of Bokim? They witnessed the event, yet they did not claim it to be God.
To represent this angel as God would be illogical, inconsistent with the concept of agency, inconsistent with the chapter cited (Judges 2) and blasphemous. In fact it would also suggest that God sneaks into his creation without telling anybody and this would open the way to Paganism. Sam Shamoun and other claimants need to have a rethink; they are insulting God here.
Manipulating the Book of Revelation?
Shamoun brings Revelation 22 to the fore and is convoluted in his attempt to try and convince us that the angel is God. Shamoun forgets that the author of Revelation is supported by Paul and would have been accepting of Paul’s teaching that angels are simply beings “sent to serve” (Hebrews 1:14), thus they are not God. Therefore it would be reasonable to suggest the author of Revelation (John) did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God despite Shamoun’s attempts to manipulate the text in order to present something different.
Hebrews 1:14 (authored by Paul) tells us angels are “sent to serve those who will inherit the salvation”. Thus Paul did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God.
Zechariah chapter 3 and throwing away one’s cognitive capacity as well as one’s ability to read the WHOLE chapter
Zechariah 3:1-2: Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"
Joshua, the angel of the Lord and Satan were present in a particular setting. The narrative then mentions the Lord saying to Satan“ the Lord rebuke you, Satan”
Shamoun audaciously tries to show this to mean that the angel is the Lord. Shamoun forgets to mention that God does not have to be physically in the presence of Satan or next to Satan in order to rebuke him. Surely God can speak from above, yet Shamoun misses this well-known attribute of God.
Essentially Shamoun throws away his cognitive capacity in his attempt to support his personal belief. Shamoun not only does away with reasoning, he does not even bother to read further down the chapter.
If you read further on in the chapter, the angel actually speaks and the author (said to be Zechariah) identifies the angel as “the angel”. Surely if the angel was the Lord it would have been addressed as “the Lord” rather than “the angel”. So we notice the author draws a distinction between “the angel” and “the Lord”, thus to two cannot be the same!
Surely the author of the book of Zechariah would have called this angel “the Lord” or God rather than identifying it as “the angel” if he genuinely believed it to be God. This is pure desperation on the part of Sam.
Essentially, Zechariah does not claim the angel to be God but draws a distinction showing the two are not the same. Despite Zechariah not agreeing with Shamoun’s assertions Shamoun runs with them nevertheless.
Zechariah 3:4
The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes."
It is clear from this verse that the author of the Book of Zechariah did not believe this angel to be the Lord, yet Shamoun opposes the author of the Book of Zechariah (thought to be Zechariah himself).
Shamoun misses another verse in this chapter which proves that this angel is simply an agent of God and not God himself, verse 6 shows the angel QUOTING the Lord and delivering the Lord’s message by saying “this is what the Lord Almighty says:…”
Interestingly enough Shamoun misses this, this is a trend within Shamoun’s material; miss and ignore material which clearly proves the angel not to be God
Reading too much into filthy clothing (Zechariah 3:4-5)
The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you." (Zec 3:4)
Then I said, "Put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by. (Zec 3:5)
Shamoun twists the angel saying “I have taken away your sin” by missing the context. The word “sin” clearly refers to dirty clothes here, this is evidenced by the later verse (Zec3:5) where these dirty clothes are replaced with physical clothing; a clean turban and clothes, the angel even tells him he will put rich garments on him.
It does not mean the angel has forgiven Joshua’s sin. It simply means the angel dressed him with clean clothes, in fact verse 5 is specific in dressing Joshua with a “clean turban” and clothing him (“clothed him”).
Shamoun, again misses the context and plays on any ambiguity he can generate by avoiding complete quotation, in fact, Shamoun should have looked at the chapter heading in the NIV as it states “ Clean garments for the high priest” thus indicating the angel simply dressed the priest (Joshua) with clean garments and did not forgive Joshua’s sins. The word “forgive” is not even used in the passage.
This example typifies the type of ambiguity Shamoun and those of his belief pattern look to exploit, how can one claim an angel to be God based on such a stretch and exploitation of ambiguity?
Even if Shamoun takes the dirty clothing as a metaphor for sin he should also note the concept of agency [2] covers this. He should also note that there is no indication that the author thought the angel was God. Surely if he thought the angel to be God he would have said so.
Shamoun simply pounced on a hint of ambiguity within the Bible and ran with his claim.
Shamoun selectively twists and misses evidence showing us that the angel is not God in Exodus 23: 20-23
In 23:20 God says “I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and bring you to the place I have prepared”
Thus we realise God sends the angel, therefore the angel cannot possibly be God!
Shamoun misses this as this clearly shows this angel is not God!
Shamoun avoids this obvious refutation of his claim and jumps to Exodus 23:21 and tries to convince us that the angel has the power to forgive sins and therefore is God. This is a completely desperate stretch by Shamoun. The passage merely teaches us the angel “will not forgive you” “if you rebel against him”. This does not mean the angel is God nor has the power to forgive sin.
Exodus 23:21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
Shamoun misses the wider picture; it is God who is saying “he (the angel) will not forgive you”, thus we realise that God is not this angel, the passage clearly separates God from this angel. It is also important to note that God does not claim to be this angel (or any angel) thus there is no need for us to believe an angel to be God!
Shamoun does not read further down the passage, God does not claim to be this angel in fact God describes this angel as “My angel” (Exodus 23:23) thus we realise this angel to be nothing more than an angel (God confirms it to be His angel) we also note God owns this angel. Therefore we learn it is not God but merely an angel. Shamoun disagrees; is Shamoun saying God is lying or is wrong in this verse?
Forgiveness (the angel “will not forgive your rebellion”)
Think about it, if one rebels against any innocent party; the one wronged or rebelled against has a right to forgive or not to forgive that particular person, this does not mean this individual, all of a sudden, has a right to forgive all sin and is God.
This highlights Shamoun’s lack of logic. Shamoun should also note that he (and all creations of God) has a right to forgive an individual if he has been wronged by that individual, does Shamoun believe he is God due to this right of his?
Shamoun’s desperation to claim an angel to be God leads him to such an unreasonable thought pattern.
The concept of agency also explains this angel in Exodus 23 not to be God. Shamoun needs to ponder upon the concept of agency as well as context and good reasoning before making such declarations
What is more worrying than Shamoun’s lack of reasoning is his willingness to discard evidence which shows the angel is not God, this evidence is even in the same passage he cites!
Exodus 23:20 clearly shows this angel NOT to be God
In 23:20 God says “I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and bring you to the place I have prepared”
Clearly, in this passage, God sends the angel and speaks of the angel as a separate being (a creation of God). This angel is sent BY God, thus cannot possibly be God. Pure logic! Shamoun misses the verse and misses the logic due to his desperation to convince us of his personal beliefs.
God’s Name is in the angel?
Shamoun notes from the same passage that God’s Name is in the angel (Exodus 23:21). Shamoun bizarrely proclaims the angel to be God due to this; he claims this means the angel has the attributes of God.
Having the Name of God inside you does not make one God; it is simply another reference to the fact that this angel is an agent of God. The fact that God speaks of this angel as a distinct entity should be enough to realise that this angel is not God.
Inconsistency: A sign of a failed argument
Shamoun admits his inconsistency by claiming sometimes the angel of the Lord is the Lord whilst at other time this angel is not the Lord. Ironically, after butchering the context himself, he claims you have to look at the context to decide whether the angel of the Lord is God or not.
Well, Sam, I have had a look at the context and I notice the angel of the Lord is never God. Angels are “sent to serve”, as stated in Hebrews 1:14, God is not “sent to serve”.
Thoughts on Sam Shamoun and his presentation
Shamoun resorts to interpolation, manipulation, semantics and quoting out of context. The fact of the matter is, if God wanted us to believe He is/was this angel then he would have said so or had a Prophet to say so. He would not be relying on Shamoun and other late Trinitarians to teach us this by semantics, misrepresentations and confusion.
Shamoun needs to rethink; God speaks of the angel as a separate being, thus the angel cannot be God. Shamoun needs to look at context more carefully in future as his lack of comprehension in terms of context is his downfall.
NB In the original article the author of Revelation was incorrectly written as Luke. Apologies to whomever was confused by this. Due to the rushed nature of my work errors do creep in. Again i apologize and encourage all to sift through my work and alert me of any mistakes.
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Further nuggets of contemplation for those who still believe this angel to have been God:
Acts 7:30, an angel of the Lord is mentioned in Acts 7:30, why did the author of this book (Luke) not state this angle to be God? Furthermore, as mentioned by Shamoun’s audience member; why did the Apostle Stephen not teach this angel to be God? All this points to the belief that neither Luke, nor the Apostle Stephen believed the angel of the Lord to be God as well as pointing to their understanding of the concept of agency.
Zechariah 1:12-13, the angel of the Lord asks the Lord a question and the Lord even answers the angel! Surely this angel is not God:
1:12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?"
1:13 So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.
The author of the Gospel of Matthew indicates that he does not view the angel of the Lord to be God as he describes it as an angel of the Lord and does not claim it to be God
God does not change nature. Therefore, if you are consistent with this belief you cannot possibly believe God to have turned into or incarnated into an angel. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE NATURE
Concept of agency:
Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent. [2]
Appendix 2
Further reading:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=145#null
Appendix 3
Shamoun’s three part lecture trying to convince us an angel is God:
1st part (2nd and third parts follow):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVJ_DoyM9k&feature=PlayList&p=23CE5D6E599434A7&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
References
[1] Peter Hitchens, The Mail on Sunday, page 27, July 26 2009
[2] The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R. J. Z. Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. (New York, Adama Books, 1986), p. 15
The Bible suggests an angel cannot be God!
Hebrews 1:14: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Here, the Bible tells us angels are “sent to serve”. Clearly God is not “sent to serve” by any being. God has authority over everything thus we realise the angel of the Lord cannot possibly be God.
In addition we learn all angels are “ministering spirits”, God is not a ministering spirit therefore we can realise the angel of the Lord is not God.
Hebrews is authored by Paul. Therefore even Paul did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God.
Furthermore, Zechariah 1:12-13 shows the angel of the Lord communicating with God; the angel asks God a question and God answers the angel. Clearly this passage shows the angel not to be God as they are clearly shown to be distinct entities.
Logic proves the angel of the Lord is not God
Simple analysis of the term “angel of the Lord” proves this angel is not God.
Firstly the word “angel” is used. An angel by definition is not God. Thus we realise it is not the Lord. It is a case of stating the obvious; an angel is an angel.
Secondly, the term used highlights two distinct and separate entities, ie “the Angel” and the “Lord”; therefore the two cannot be the same entity. Therefore the angel cannot be the Lord (God).
Thirdly, the term denotes ownership, i.e. the Lord owns the angel, thus the angel cannot be the Lord. God is the Owner whilst the angel is the being which is owned. The two cannot possibly be the same.
No Biblical authority teaches the angel of the Lord to be God
Apart from the logical and Biblical case against the claim that this angel is God we can also look to the teachings of Zechariah, Moses, Jesus, John the Baptist and other Prophets; none of whom taught the angel of the Lord to be God.
Even lesser authorities in the Bible such as Paul and the four narrators of the Gospels never taught this angel to be God. There is no theological compulsion on the part of any Christian (even a Trinitarian) to believe God was/is the angel of the Lord, fundamental Christian dogma does not contain this teaching.
Gateway to paganism
Despite all of this there are still some Trinitarians looking to justify their beliefs via Biblical scripture have turned to playing on ambiguity and interpolation despite there being no logical support or Biblical authority for their claim. These groups making such paganistic claims should ponder upon the points made above as well as the implications of their claim.
The claimant does not think things through, essentially they are saying God secretively becomes His creation and does this for no apparent reason. Again, reasoning militates against them and shows them this angel is not God. The further implication is the encouragement their view gives to those who want to introduce more paganism within Christianity. What is there to stop somebody with a similar mindset to the claimants declaring “David is God” or “Melchizedek is God”? Both David and Melchizedek have enough Biblical ambiguity surrounding them for somebody to wrongfully suggest one or both of them to be God whilst “supporting” their claim with Biblical references. Basically this claim concerning the angel of the Lord is a gateway to paganism.
The arguments of those who believe this angel to be God
For fairness and thoroughness the arguments of one such claimant will be analysed and subjected to scrutiny. As Sam Shamoun is the most vocal advocate of this claim (that I have come across) then his audio presentation will be used as a sample argument for the opposition’s claims and a refutation of his view is posited.
Personal view
Personally, I find it astonishing that anybody who claims to have an attachment to Abrahamic monotheism would view an angel to be God, nevertheless I found Shamoun’s argumentation grossly unconvincing, hence my protestation in this article.
Heretical: Shamoun and those of his ilk
We must realise Shamoun’s views on the angel of the Lord would have been deemed heretical during the time of Jesus and indeed before the time of Jesus. However, we do have a culture of freedom and individualism within established religion within the West, hence views like Shamoun’s are somewhat encouraged just like new ideas such as gay priests etc being introduced into Christianity. It should be understood this is not something which should be approved of, continually looking to change or innovate new ideas into Christianity has real pitfalls. Peter Hitchens sums up this new innovative attitude; “the Church of England never sleeps in its efforts to chuck away its own heritage and abandon the principles of Christianity” [1]
Having noted that Shamoun brings new ideas or what is more traditionally termed as “heretical” ideas to the table we can discuss them within this context.
The claimants use ambiguous verses from the Bible in order to support their claims and their arguments based on such verses are extremely flimsy.
Concept of agency explains away their Biblical references
This concept teaches that an act committed by the angel can be an act carried out by God Himself.
Concept of agency explained:
Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent. [2]
However, in my view, the concept of agency is not even required to deal with the arguments presented by those who claim an angel to be God.
Numbers 22:31 and Shamoun’s editing of the verse!
One of the Biblical verses the claimants use is Numbers (22:31):
Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
Sam Shamoun actually claims this verse teaches that Balaam bows down “BEFORE” the angel of the Lord. This is a complete distortion of the verse. Nowhere does it mention bowing “before” the angel, it merely teaches us that Balaam does prostrate but the verse does not specify to whom Balaam bows down to, though it is assumed that this bowing down was to God when the context is understood.
The sad thing is Shamoun and others twist this verse. Balaam, in this verse, realises his sin upon seeing the angel of the Lord. Balaam bows down upon realising this sin.
The claimant tries to represent Balaam as worshipping the angel. This is not in the text though the context suggests that he bows down to the One who he believes can forgive him of his mistake, i.e. God. So the claimant manipulates and even CHANGES the text, Sam Shamoun (a staunch Trinitarian) makes this mistake. In fact the author (said to be Moses) does not claim the angel to be God. Surely Moses knows better than Sam Shamoun?
Shamoun fails to look further down in the chapter; after this event, the author identifies this angel as “the angel of the Lord” and not as “God” or “the Lord” (22:32 and 35) thus showing the author (said to be Moses) did not believe this angel to be God nor did he believe Balaam prostrated to the angel.
In fact, the author never claims this angel to be God. Who knows more, Sam Shamoun or the author of Numbers chapter 22 (many believe Moses wrote the Book of Numbers)?
Note: Though the author of Numbers is said to be Moses we must remember that the Bible did undergo transformation due to scribal errors and forgeries so it is intellectually dishonest to claim Moses authored the Book of Numbers in its present form. The same applies to Zechariah (mentioned later on in this article)
Judges 2:1 is explained by the concept of agency as well as context
Essentially, in Judges 2:1, God sends the angel to deliver a direct message to the people in Bokim:
The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you,
Shamoun should read the full chapter, if he had done so he would have understood this angel cannot to be God as the people of Bokim, after hearing the message presented by this angel are said to have “offered sacrifices to the Lord”; they did not offer sacrifices to the angel of the Lord but they did offer these sacrifices to God, thus showing they understood the angel NOT to be God but merely presenting a direct message from the Lord i.e. they understood the concept of agency.
When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud,
and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD. (Judges 2:4-5)
Nowhere in Judges does it claim an angel to be God.
Shamoun needs to brush up on the concept of agency as well as read the entire passage in order to get a grasp of the context.
Is Shamoun trying to tell us he knows better than the people of Bokim? They witnessed the event, yet they did not claim it to be God.
To represent this angel as God would be illogical, inconsistent with the concept of agency, inconsistent with the chapter cited (Judges 2) and blasphemous. In fact it would also suggest that God sneaks into his creation without telling anybody and this would open the way to Paganism. Sam Shamoun and other claimants need to have a rethink; they are insulting God here.
Manipulating the Book of Revelation?
Shamoun brings Revelation 22 to the fore and is convoluted in his attempt to try and convince us that the angel is God. Shamoun forgets that the author of Revelation is supported by Paul and would have been accepting of Paul’s teaching that angels are simply beings “sent to serve” (Hebrews 1:14), thus they are not God. Therefore it would be reasonable to suggest the author of Revelation (John) did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God despite Shamoun’s attempts to manipulate the text in order to present something different.
Hebrews 1:14 (authored by Paul) tells us angels are “sent to serve those who will inherit the salvation”. Thus Paul did not believe the angel of the Lord to be God.
Zechariah chapter 3 and throwing away one’s cognitive capacity as well as one’s ability to read the WHOLE chapter
Zechariah 3:1-2: Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"
Joshua, the angel of the Lord and Satan were present in a particular setting. The narrative then mentions the Lord saying to Satan“ the Lord rebuke you, Satan”
Shamoun audaciously tries to show this to mean that the angel is the Lord. Shamoun forgets to mention that God does not have to be physically in the presence of Satan or next to Satan in order to rebuke him. Surely God can speak from above, yet Shamoun misses this well-known attribute of God.
Essentially Shamoun throws away his cognitive capacity in his attempt to support his personal belief. Shamoun not only does away with reasoning, he does not even bother to read further down the chapter.
If you read further on in the chapter, the angel actually speaks and the author (said to be Zechariah) identifies the angel as “the angel”. Surely if the angel was the Lord it would have been addressed as “the Lord” rather than “the angel”. So we notice the author draws a distinction between “the angel” and “the Lord”, thus to two cannot be the same!
Surely the author of the book of Zechariah would have called this angel “the Lord” or God rather than identifying it as “the angel” if he genuinely believed it to be God. This is pure desperation on the part of Sam.
Essentially, Zechariah does not claim the angel to be God but draws a distinction showing the two are not the same. Despite Zechariah not agreeing with Shamoun’s assertions Shamoun runs with them nevertheless.
Zechariah 3:4
The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes."
It is clear from this verse that the author of the Book of Zechariah did not believe this angel to be the Lord, yet Shamoun opposes the author of the Book of Zechariah (thought to be Zechariah himself).
Shamoun misses another verse in this chapter which proves that this angel is simply an agent of God and not God himself, verse 6 shows the angel QUOTING the Lord and delivering the Lord’s message by saying “this is what the Lord Almighty says:…”
Interestingly enough Shamoun misses this, this is a trend within Shamoun’s material; miss and ignore material which clearly proves the angel not to be God
Reading too much into filthy clothing (Zechariah 3:4-5)
The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you." (Zec 3:4)
Then I said, "Put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by. (Zec 3:5)
Shamoun twists the angel saying “I have taken away your sin” by missing the context. The word “sin” clearly refers to dirty clothes here, this is evidenced by the later verse (Zec3:5) where these dirty clothes are replaced with physical clothing; a clean turban and clothes, the angel even tells him he will put rich garments on him.
It does not mean the angel has forgiven Joshua’s sin. It simply means the angel dressed him with clean clothes, in fact verse 5 is specific in dressing Joshua with a “clean turban” and clothing him (“clothed him”).
Shamoun, again misses the context and plays on any ambiguity he can generate by avoiding complete quotation, in fact, Shamoun should have looked at the chapter heading in the NIV as it states “ Clean garments for the high priest” thus indicating the angel simply dressed the priest (Joshua) with clean garments and did not forgive Joshua’s sins. The word “forgive” is not even used in the passage.
This example typifies the type of ambiguity Shamoun and those of his belief pattern look to exploit, how can one claim an angel to be God based on such a stretch and exploitation of ambiguity?
Even if Shamoun takes the dirty clothing as a metaphor for sin he should also note the concept of agency [2] covers this. He should also note that there is no indication that the author thought the angel was God. Surely if he thought the angel to be God he would have said so.
Shamoun simply pounced on a hint of ambiguity within the Bible and ran with his claim.
Shamoun selectively twists and misses evidence showing us that the angel is not God in Exodus 23: 20-23
In 23:20 God says “I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and bring you to the place I have prepared”
Thus we realise God sends the angel, therefore the angel cannot possibly be God!
Shamoun misses this as this clearly shows this angel is not God!
Shamoun avoids this obvious refutation of his claim and jumps to Exodus 23:21 and tries to convince us that the angel has the power to forgive sins and therefore is God. This is a completely desperate stretch by Shamoun. The passage merely teaches us the angel “will not forgive you” “if you rebel against him”. This does not mean the angel is God nor has the power to forgive sin.
Exodus 23:21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
Shamoun misses the wider picture; it is God who is saying “he (the angel) will not forgive you”, thus we realise that God is not this angel, the passage clearly separates God from this angel. It is also important to note that God does not claim to be this angel (or any angel) thus there is no need for us to believe an angel to be God!
Shamoun does not read further down the passage, God does not claim to be this angel in fact God describes this angel as “My angel” (Exodus 23:23) thus we realise this angel to be nothing more than an angel (God confirms it to be His angel) we also note God owns this angel. Therefore we learn it is not God but merely an angel. Shamoun disagrees; is Shamoun saying God is lying or is wrong in this verse?
Forgiveness (the angel “will not forgive your rebellion”)
Think about it, if one rebels against any innocent party; the one wronged or rebelled against has a right to forgive or not to forgive that particular person, this does not mean this individual, all of a sudden, has a right to forgive all sin and is God.
This highlights Shamoun’s lack of logic. Shamoun should also note that he (and all creations of God) has a right to forgive an individual if he has been wronged by that individual, does Shamoun believe he is God due to this right of his?
Shamoun’s desperation to claim an angel to be God leads him to such an unreasonable thought pattern.
The concept of agency also explains this angel in Exodus 23 not to be God. Shamoun needs to ponder upon the concept of agency as well as context and good reasoning before making such declarations
What is more worrying than Shamoun’s lack of reasoning is his willingness to discard evidence which shows the angel is not God, this evidence is even in the same passage he cites!
Exodus 23:20 clearly shows this angel NOT to be God
In 23:20 God says “I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and bring you to the place I have prepared”
Clearly, in this passage, God sends the angel and speaks of the angel as a separate being (a creation of God). This angel is sent BY God, thus cannot possibly be God. Pure logic! Shamoun misses the verse and misses the logic due to his desperation to convince us of his personal beliefs.
God’s Name is in the angel?
Shamoun notes from the same passage that God’s Name is in the angel (Exodus 23:21). Shamoun bizarrely proclaims the angel to be God due to this; he claims this means the angel has the attributes of God.
Having the Name of God inside you does not make one God; it is simply another reference to the fact that this angel is an agent of God. The fact that God speaks of this angel as a distinct entity should be enough to realise that this angel is not God.
Inconsistency: A sign of a failed argument
Shamoun admits his inconsistency by claiming sometimes the angel of the Lord is the Lord whilst at other time this angel is not the Lord. Ironically, after butchering the context himself, he claims you have to look at the context to decide whether the angel of the Lord is God or not.
Well, Sam, I have had a look at the context and I notice the angel of the Lord is never God. Angels are “sent to serve”, as stated in Hebrews 1:14, God is not “sent to serve”.
Thoughts on Sam Shamoun and his presentation
Shamoun resorts to interpolation, manipulation, semantics and quoting out of context. The fact of the matter is, if God wanted us to believe He is/was this angel then he would have said so or had a Prophet to say so. He would not be relying on Shamoun and other late Trinitarians to teach us this by semantics, misrepresentations and confusion.
Shamoun needs to rethink; God speaks of the angel as a separate being, thus the angel cannot be God. Shamoun needs to look at context more carefully in future as his lack of comprehension in terms of context is his downfall.
NB In the original article the author of Revelation was incorrectly written as Luke. Apologies to whomever was confused by this. Due to the rushed nature of my work errors do creep in. Again i apologize and encourage all to sift through my work and alert me of any mistakes.
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Further nuggets of contemplation for those who still believe this angel to have been God:
Acts 7:30, an angel of the Lord is mentioned in Acts 7:30, why did the author of this book (Luke) not state this angle to be God? Furthermore, as mentioned by Shamoun’s audience member; why did the Apostle Stephen not teach this angel to be God? All this points to the belief that neither Luke, nor the Apostle Stephen believed the angel of the Lord to be God as well as pointing to their understanding of the concept of agency.
Zechariah 1:12-13, the angel of the Lord asks the Lord a question and the Lord even answers the angel! Surely this angel is not God:
1:12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?"
1:13 So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.
The author of the Gospel of Matthew indicates that he does not view the angel of the Lord to be God as he describes it as an angel of the Lord and does not claim it to be God
God does not change nature. Therefore, if you are consistent with this belief you cannot possibly believe God to have turned into or incarnated into an angel. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE NATURE
Concept of agency:
Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent. [2]
Appendix 2
Further reading:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=145#null
Appendix 3
Shamoun’s three part lecture trying to convince us an angel is God:
1st part (2nd and third parts follow):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVJ_DoyM9k&feature=PlayList&p=23CE5D6E599434A7&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
References
[1] Peter Hitchens, The Mail on Sunday, page 27, July 26 2009
[2] The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R. J. Z. Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. (New York, Adama Books, 1986), p. 15
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Islamophobe Takes the Biscuit!
An Islamophobe from India (MrAryansurya) stated:
Muslims are Demons in Human form, These demons doesn't require sympathy or Respect.
This comment was made on aYouTube video, this just illustrates the depth which the anti-Muslim sentiment has reached on the internet. The internet reflects real life, we needto realise Islamophobia to be real. Muslims and fair non-Muslims need to join forces in opposing this wave of hatred
Note: I have dealt with the "demonic" claim previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2TSX-Ksag8
Muslims are Demons in Human form, These demons doesn't require sympathy or Respect.
This comment was made on aYouTube video, this just illustrates the depth which the anti-Muslim sentiment has reached on the internet. The internet reflects real life, we needto realise Islamophobia to be real. Muslims and fair non-Muslims need to join forces in opposing this wave of hatred
Note: I have dealt with the "demonic" claim previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2TSX-Ksag8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)