Saturday, 18 June 2011

Problem with Christianity: Jesus Went to Hell for Three Days?

I know some lay Christians will be baulking at the title but they should rest assured that orthodox Christians do believe Jesus went to Hell (for ‘proclamation’ purposes), just consult their creeds:

The Apostles’ Creed reads: ‘He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, descended to hell, rose from the dead on the third day’

The Athanasian Creed, in turn, declares: ‘Who suffered for our salvation, descended to hell, rose from the dead on the third day’

Of course, these creeds do not specifically state the length of time Jesus spent in hell though the period of three days has been banded about.

Does Luke contradict the Christian Creed?

The Gospels have nothing about Jesus descending to hell. Luke has Jesus stating he will be in paradise on the SAME day of his alleged death along with the ‘criminal’ whom Jesus addresses immediately prior to his alleged death:

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” [Luke 23:43 – NIV]

How do serious Trinitarian Christians reconcile this? It’s a serious question.

Reasoning behind the ‘Jesus going to Hell’ story…

Now, if I recall correctly, Geza Vermes (The Resurrection) touches on this issue and intimates the idea of Jesus going into Sheol (the underworld) was designed to appease Pauline Christianity’s target audience, the Graeco-Roman pagans, who would have been concerned about their forefathers and past greats who never knew of Christ. Hence the introduction of the belief in their man god (Christians like to use a subtle variation, ‘god man’) going down to ‘the depths of the earth’ and proclaiming to those ‘imprisoned spirits’ [Ref 1 Peter 3:19 and Ephesians 4:9]

A Faith Questioning Synopsis?

Christian creeds advance the belief in Jesus descending to Hell. Yet, the more discerning will notice in the entire New Testament, Jesus makes no mention of this mission to Hell, nor do any of the Gospel writers. In fact, Luke, in his version of the story, seemingly contradicts the idea of Jesus going to hell as he depicts Jesus as ascending to paradise!

Our Christian friends may offer some form of reconciliation but the real test is to check whether their reconciliation is Biblically and logically sound or simply foreign philosophy interjected into obscure texts to strengthen the already convicted…


Become a Muslim if you love Jesus (p)

Sexism: Reason to change the Bible

Discover Islam

New Testament Discussed


Anonymous said...

Silly Muslim. Ask yourself the following question: "Where does it say that Jesus will 'ascend' to paradise in Luke's account of the Gospel?"

sam shamoun suporter said...


sam shamoun suporter said...

And the creed he is using is a fake. Apostles dud not have this creed. He is using another fake creed by Athanasian. He is not saying it is in latin. Where he got the translation? And Athanasius is not reformed Christian and Catholics suport him. The full athanasian creed is in latin, i will write it.

Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.

Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis]. Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis; Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

sam shamoun suporter said...

The Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult) is a Christian statement of belief, focusing on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology. The Latin name of the creed, Quicumque vult, is taken from the opening words, "Whosoever wishes." The Athanasian Creed has been used by Christian churches since the sixth century. It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated, and differs from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Apostles' Creeds in the inclusion of anathemas, or condemnations of those who disagree with the Creed (like the original Nicene Creed).

Widely accepted[1] among Western Christians, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran Church and most liturgical Protestant denominations, the Athanasian Creed has been used in public worship less and less frequently.[citation needed] The creed has never gained much acceptance in liturgy among Eastern Christians.[1]


1MoreMuslim said...

To Sam Shamoun supporter:

What a good lough this morning loool

See your latin post, what does " descendit ad inferos" means to you. I don't know latin, but it seems to me saying DESCENDED TO HELL.

Do you know any reformed christtian before 6th century?

Radical Moderate said...


At it again I see. You are either willfully ignorant, or just being deceptive.

Yahya Snow said...

@Sam Shamoun

Please stop with the misguided comments. My translations of the creeds come through a reputed scholar - Geza Vermes.

Now, you have been quoting from wikipaedia. If you had bothered to copy and paste all of the said wiki page you would have realised wiki has your latin (which you got from wiki) translated alongside the Latin, here is the relevant part:

Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead.

As for Athanasius, who cares what his theology was as the creed is one of those Christian specialities where it has been attributed to him at a later date. The most important part for us today is that CHRISTIANS (including Protestants - your wikipaedia page confirms this too) hold to this creed.

The same applies to the Apostle's Creed which teaches Jesus went to hell too. Christians hold to this creed.

People, check these things out for yourselves. Don't just be swayed by emotions.


Oh ok. I guess you bought into Sam Shamoun Supporter's misinformation.

Radical Moderate said...


Don't know who Sam Supporter is, to be honest I thought he was mocking Sam on another post.

But thats nice you got your translation from a "SCHOLAR' the translation is not the question it is your understanding of that Translation.

Give you a example lets see if you can use your brain.

Jonah 2:2 KJV, and tell me what you think.

1MoreMuslim said...

Radical Moderate always throw an accusation than disappears. He denies everything , even his own Church history, he never heard about Arianism controversy , he doesn't know that Orthodox Christianity was in fact close to distinction during the life of Athanasius ( the father of orthodoxy, Doctor of church) , the same Athanasius, included in his creed that Jesus descended to HEll. What the Christians are denying , I don't know!

Radical Moderate said...


Wow talk about misrepresentation.

You Wrote...
"He denies everything , even his own Church history, he never heard about Arianism controversy , he doesn't know that Orthodox Christianity was in fact close to distinction during the life of Athanasius"

I never denied or said such a thing. I mearly pointed out to you how you didn't know Church History. You stated that Arinism was the majority. It was not. All but two of the 300 plus bishops voted in favor of the Nicean Creed, and Arius as well as a few of his followers were exiled.

Also Ariaus showed up at the council with 20 supporters, all but two quickly disowned him as soon as his writings where read, and they understood the fallacy of his invented doctrine.

This hardly constitutes a Majority.

The Truth is that it was Emperor Constantine, you know that guy who along with Paul according to Muslims invented the Trinity, that later kept backing Arius in-spite of the councils decision.

It is true that Athanasia's was thrown out of his church 7 Times, however as Esubious later wrote "The Whole world groaned to find it self Arian" groan as in PAIN.

So no the Majority were NOT Arians, this was Satan trying to use the Politics of Rome to destroy the true Doctrine. But God prevailed in the end just like he will prevail against Islam, and all other false religions.

Seriously man read a book.

Anonymous said...

The creed and John Wesley
The Apostles’ Creed, which Roman Catholics and most Protestants use, first developed as an outline of faith for Christian converts to recite during baptisms at Easter.

The earliest known version of it dates back to fourth-century Rome, and it finally took written form in A.D. 800, said the Rev. Barry E. Bryant, associate professor of Wesleyan and United Methodist studies at United Methodist–related Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Chicago.

By the eighth century, the Apostles’ Creed included the Latin phrase “descendit ad inferna,” which literally means 'he went down to the lower regions' and does not necessarily refer to the realm of eternal punishment.

Methodism’s founder John Wesley sent mixed signals about the creed to American Methodists, Bryant said. Wesley removed Article III from the Anglican Articles of Religion, which read, “As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.”

Yet he kept “he descended into hell” as part of morning and evening prayers, and “he went down into hell” as a part of the baptismal liturgy, Bryant said.

John Deschner's book “Wesley's Christology” says that because Jesus told the thief on the cross that the thief would be with Jesus in paradise (Luke 23:43), Wesley's view was that Jesus was in "paradise" between his death and his Resurrection.

By 1792, American Methodists dropped the phrase altogether from worship. The phrase “descended to the dead” returned in the 20th century. The ecumenical movement among Protestants and Catholics encouraged United Methodists and others to re-embrace traditions of the early church.

Anonymous said...

What the Bible says
The Bible offers no clear answer on how Jesus spent the day and a half or so between his death and Resurrection, says the Rev. Ben Witherington III, a blogger at and New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky.

However, that didn’t stop some early Christians from speculating and gleaning from Scripture all they could.

One big concern for the early church — and Christians to this day — is what happened to the Old Testament patriarchs and others who never knew of Christ.

A whole mythology arose about Jesus rescuing people from the netherworld after the crucifixion. The Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates to the third century and did not make the Bible cut, offers a narrative of Jesus retrieving Adam and other Old Testament figures from Satan’s clutches.

Smith describes such imagery to his students as “Christ’s commando raid on hell.” In addition, it was a popular subject for medieval artists.

“What is going on here is Christian reflection on the doctrine of salvation only in Christ, and then trying to figure out where does that leave people who a) haven’t heard about Christ or b) who lived before Christ,” Witherington said.

That is a question that remains a source of debate for modern Christians.

Yet some early theologians have cited a biblical basis for the phrase “descended to the dead” or “descended to hell.”

1 Peter 3:19-20 offers a cryptic reference to Christ after death preaching “to the spirits in prison who formerly did not obey when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah … .”

Some theologians have interpreted this as Christ releasing Old Testament figures held captive by death. Witherington disagrees. He sees the passage as a clear allusion to the fallen angels who in Genesis 6 married humans in the days before Noah.

“He’s declaring victory over the fallen angels on the way to heaven,” Witherington said. “This is after the Resurrection.”

Ephesians 4:7-10 also speaks of Christ ascending on high with a host of captives and insists that Christ also descended to “the lower parts of the earth.” Just as with the passage in 1 Peter, interpretations of what this means have varied wildly. Smith reads it as an allusion to Sheol, the Old Testament abode of the dead.

1MoreMuslim said...

Ex-Sunni revert to Ahmadya

You can see the Quadhiani Khalifa himself taking the Shahada of Ex-Sunnis. So true devout ahmadi believe in the truth of MGA teachings , that non-Ahamadis are bastards until they accept him as a messiah, the son of ary , even though his mother is not Mary.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Radical, the truth prevailed. Trinitarianism won out, just like these guys' Qur'an said it would - S. 3:55 and 61:14.

Radical Moderate said...


Still waiting to here from you on what are the clear and unclear verses in the Quran, as well as where that Question is in the Quran.

Man you need to learn your religion first before you start telling us Christians what we believe and what are history is.

1MoreMuslim said...

radical Moderate:
I Guess CS Lewis is not a scholar in your eyes, like Bart ehrman and others.

" this was Satan trying to use the Politics of Rome to destroy the true Doctrine"
The same Rome who helped the Nicene council 325AD?

Radical Moderate said...


You wrote...

"radical Moderate:
I Guess CS Lewis is not a scholar in your eyes, like Bart ehrman and others."

I have no idea what this has to do with our conversation? This is absurd that you even bring them up with out even siting anything from them. Why would you even bring them up in are conversation in regards to Nicea?

You then wrote...

"The same Rome who helped the Nicene council 325AD?"

You just keep exposing how ignorant you are when it comes to the subject.

The answer to your question is YES.
The same Roman Emperor who for political reasons because he wanted a unified Empire, and he wanted to use the Church infrastructure for his own nefarious purposes hosted the first council of Nicea.

This same Emperor whom Muslims accuse of inventing the doctrine of the Trinity, died a Arian.

This same Roman Emperor, tried to impose Aranism on the Church.

This same Roman Emperor persecuted the Church in support of false doctrine.

So much for Constantine inventing the doctrine of the Trinity.

You cant have it both ways Muslims. If the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by Rome and Constantine then why did Constantine reject the doctrine that he helped create?

If Arianism was the majority then why was it overwhelmingly voted down in favor or Trinity?

Either way the LORD prevailed and won the day just like your Quran said. You do believe the Quran right?

" Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. " S 3:55

"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed." S 61:14

Well I think we are done here. Once again you got caught with your foot in your mouth, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Nicea, Aranius, Athanasious etc...

Really man read a BOOK. Learn about your religion before you start tell Christians theirs.

RefutingActs17 said...

To Radical Moderate:

It seems my source close to Nabeel has denied to have his/her conversations posted online. Nabeel, and his ministry is a luck one. Allah (swt) will deal with his lies His own way, Insh'Allah.

Radical Moderate said...


One more thing, if I believe that C S Lewis and or Bart Ehrman are scholars or not has nothing to do with the facts.

1. Doctrine of the Trinity was voted overwhelmingly by the Bishops present.

2. Arius had 20 supporters all but 2 or three renounced him as a heritc after his writings on the subject where read out load.

3. After Nicea Arius and his followers where exiled.

4. It was only after Arius got Emperor Constantine's ear that he convince him of his false teachings

5. Esubious wrote that the world GROANED to find it self Arian. The meaning of this is clear they groaned in pain.

6. The Arian doctrine was forced on the church which ultimately rejected it.

7. Emperor Constantine died a Arian.

How you can derive from these facts that the majority of the Church was Arian is beyond me. How can any Muslim believe that Constantine invented the doctrine of the Trinity, and then rejected his own invention is way beyond me.

Seriously read a BOOK, and by book i do not mean "Lost Christianities" lol.

Radical Moderate said...


You wrote....

"It seems my source close to Nabeel has denied to have his/her conversations posted online."

Wow thats a shocker, I'm sure I speak for all Christians when I say that we where waiting with baited breath, we were trembling in fear like Yahya Snow under the covers hiding from Jinns. (Sarcasm)

Oh BTW, just to let you know. If Nabeel does hear the voice of God that would not surprise me.

See the True Living GOD SPEAKS, unlike your God who is silent.

"But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” Gen 3:9

"When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” Exo 3:4

"Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain[b] trembled violently. 19 As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him." Exo 19:18-19

Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.” 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. Deut 4:10-12

There is much much more, but you get the idea. THE TRUE LIVING GOD SPEAKS

1MoreMuslim said...

Radical Moderate

"Having a genius for propaganda, Arius set his favourite slogant to a popular tune, and soon, Half of Alexandria was singing: There was a time when the son was not."
A History of early Christianity. William C Placher p 73

It's sad that Christians believe that non-christian sholars cannot study the history of Christians, I didn't know that the Holy Spirit guides only the christian historians.

The councils of the church is not a parliament of Christendom, Christians do not vote for their bishops.

"He ( Athanasius) stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, "whole and undefiled," when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius .
C. S Lewis , On the Incarnation.

You theory doesn't pass the test of scholarship, yes even the christian scholarship.

So Nabeel is your new prophet? If he hears God's words, he must write it down, it's called

sam shamoun suporter said...

cs lewis was not scholar of bible or theology or church.

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was an Irish-born British[1] novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist. He is well known for his fictional work, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.

Lewis was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, and both authors were leading figures in the English faculty at Oxford University and in the informal Oxford literary group known as the "Inklings". According to his memoir Surprised by Joy, Lewis had been baptised in the Church of Ireland at birth, but fell away from his faith during his adolescence. Owing to the influence of Tolkien and other friends, at the age of 32 Lewis returned to Christianity, becoming "a very ordinary layman of the Church of England".[2] His conversion had a profound effect on his work, and his wartime radio broadcasts on the subject of Christianity brought him wide acclaim.

minoria said...

To put in my thought of a PHILOSOPHICAL NATURE.I am not familiar with whether it should be believed Jesus went to the land of the dead or hell or not.BUT...

After the body of Jesus died because the Spirit of God-Son,the second person of the Trinity had left it,THEN:


2.God-Son as God can be EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME.

3.He can be in heaven with the thief as promised and at the SAME TIME be in hell.

Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised in the least that 1MoreMuslim's idea of a "Christian Scholar", is the fiction author and philosopher C.S. Lewis. Was he an historian? Was he a theologian? Does 1MoreMuslim even bother to care about his sources?

Radical Moderate said...

@1MM as in 1 Millimeter

You quoted William C Placher
"Half of Alexandria was singing: There was a time when the son was not."

So we went from "Orthodox Trinitarian Christians where a small minority and where almost wiped out." To now, only half of a single city in Egypt sang a catchy jingle about Arianism.

Also notice that the author you quote says it was do to his "Having a genius for propaganda, Arius set his favourite slogant to a popular tune," It was not due to reason or scripture.

So he had catching jingle lol. I guess when you find your self replaying a catching jingle that you heard for some product on TV or the radio that means you support that product. lol

Also continue reading on page 72 of your book, which I'm sure you don't own. Probably got the quote from some where else off the internet.

But if you have the book. keep reading because the author describes Athanasious. He is not pretty, he is not a propagandist, he does not have catchy slogans, or little jingles. Instead it is the power of Holy Spirit with the force or reason and scripture that defeats the hearsay of Arianism which had become backed by the military force of ROME.

So again you have failed to once again prove your point that Orthodoxy was a minority compared to the Hersey of Arianism.

You also wrote...

"It's sad that Christians believe that non-christian sholars cannot study the history of Christians, I didn't know that the Holy Spirit guides only the christian historians."

I never said such a thing, as matter of fact I often read books on Church history written by non Christians. As a matter of fact the book I read on Nicea was written by a Jew.

What this has to do with the Holy Spirit I haven't got a clue. Now weather the Holy Spirit is guiding these non Christians to conviction and repentance of their sins as well as understanding the scripture written about Jesus only they can say.

I do have a question. Where do you Muslims get your ideas on who is the Holy Spirit and what he guides Christians on? It seems to me as one ANON poster put it that Muslims think we get a instant DOWNLOAD of all of Gods Knowledge.

You also wrote ...

"The councils of the church is not a parliament of Christendom, Christians do not vote for their bishops."

I dont know what this has to do with any thing. I guess then you disagree with the "SCHOLARS" of Islam even when they are in agreement? Did someone vote these "SCHOLARS TO THE POSITION OF SCHOLARS"? Really grasping at straw men again.

You then quote CS Lewis
"He ( Athanasius) stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, "whole and undefiled," when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius"

I never said that Arianism wasn't a threat, it is a serious Heresy, as all Heresy's are serious. This one especially so, since it was backed and enforced by the power and might of Rome. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit guiding Athanasious then with scripture and reason, and this Herasy left to grow, it might of won the day.

However this is far from saying that "Orthodoxy was a small minority".

You then make the claim

"You theory doesn't pass the test of scholarship, yes even the christian scholarship."

Historical Fact is not a theory, if you had any of those books that you are quoting from you would realize that they state the SAME HISTORICAL FACTS I MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS POSTS.

I actually agree with every thing you quoted from those authors. Since they quote historical fact.

What I do disagree with is YOUR THEORY, that the Orthodox where a small minority that where almost wiped out. I also disagree with Muslims invention that Constantine and or Paul, invented the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea.

Radical Moderate said...

@1 Milometer

You wrote...
" So Nabeel is your new prophet? If he hears God's words, he must write it down, it's called"

It might be revelation to you, to find out that there is a God who actually loves the sinner, who actually guides sinners into conviction, repentance and righteousness through faith, who encourages and lifts up the sinner into Holiness. But that's not new revelation to us, and there is no reason to write that down, since that is the constant theme of Bible.

Maybe your problem is not so much with Christ, but with your own GOD.

So I invite you to the orignal true Islam, just as the son submits to the father who put all authority under him, so that we may submit to the son. There is no other name by which we are saved.

Come to Christ flee this corrupt and wicked generation and save yourself from the coming wrath of GOD.

Radical Moderate said...

1 Milometer

Hey I noticed you and Anthony got into it on the AM blog.

Well Anthony Rogers is closing out the Jesus or Mohamed show tonight in as of this writing in 3 min.

So maybe you can call into the show and talk to Anthony directly

1MoreMuslim said...

Radical Moderate:
Luckily, William C Placher on Page 73 describes Athanasius:
He had (Athanasius), unusually dark skin, a hooked nose, and a red beard, and he was so small that his opponents called him dwarf. He never , ever, gave in on anything. He once grabbed the bridle of the Emperor Constantine's horse and refused to let go until Constantine had conceded a theological point

Does that sound one who wins trough arguments, not to me. He seems one who pushes his ideas in your throat. I would prefer a propagandist, at least there is no physical Harassment.
I am wasting my time educating you Radical Moderate, but for the sake of God, it's nothing. lol.

1MoreMuslim said...

Radical Moderate:
I found an interesting quote from Gregory of Nyssa about the huge number of Arians, would you accept it?

Radical Moderate said...


You mean this quote...

"province of Cappadocia Secunda, which Basil wished to retain in his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In 375, however, Gregory was accused of maladministration by the provincial governor as part of the Arianizing campaign of the Roman emperor Valens (an attempt to force the church to accept the views of the heretic Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ). He was deposed in 376 by a synod of.."

sam shamoun suporter said...

CYBERJAYA: African nations have expressed interest and responded positively to the global movement of moderates.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said he had taken the opportunity to explain the concept to the heads of governments during the Leaders Retreat at the Langkawi International Dialogue.

“The leaders are interested in the idea and there is positive response in support of the [moderation] concept,” he told reporters after chairing the retreat yesterday.

Najib had in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last year called for the global movement of moderates that would see governments, intellectuals, religious scholars and business leaders across the world take a united stand against extremism.

The Prime Minister said that during the discussion, Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete had shared his country's experience in which the government was in the midst of identifying moderates to solve the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes in Burundi.