Marcus McElhaney who spends a great deal of his time with his hand on his face is the ultimate 'yes man'.
I think much of his problem is that every time you turn around his hand is upon his face. Rather than having his eyes wide open and dealing with the issues head on.
Sometime the failure is blinding averting my eyes is the only reasonable response.
I had two recent blog entries.
One was dealing with a crushing refutation of Anthony Rogers (a reformed Christian who contributes to the answering-Islam web site). This blog entry was called, "Jesus Created Or Uncreated" You can see that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/jesus-created-or-uncreated-anthony.html
The other was a debate between defender of the faith: Abdullah Al Andalusi and apologist the Pseudo-Calvinist James White on the issue of the Ouusia (essence of God) and the Christian concept of the Trinity. The Big Homoousia Debate: Abdullah Al Andalusi and James White Debate The Christian Trinity.
You can see that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/big-homoousia-debate-abdullah-al.html
McElhaney decided that he would give some comments. However, McElhaney felt that comments may not be sufficient so he gave a much wider response. You can see that here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/10/face-palm-quote-of-day-7-from.html
So the above link is his material so as not to misquote. After all you can't trust us Muslims right?
No sane person I know would make that kind of stupid assumption...except last time I check the Qur'an says that it's okay to lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam causes. But, no, I would not even try to accuse of that.
So I'm going to give his material here:My new responses or reflection will be in green font...
.
I've been conversing with thegrandverbalizer regarding the Trinity and Jesus Christ's incarnation. He has made some comments that I believe are worth responding too because they are so bad. They get the "FacePalm" award today. His comments are italics and mine are in red.
Well McElhanehy hopefully after you post your refutation of the Jewish understanding of Genesis 18 on the messiahtruth forum you will keep me updated on how the exchanges is going.
I don't feel a need to write comments on the forum you provided. I'm amazed that you seem naive enough to think all Jews understand Genesis 18 the way this link explains it. They don't. Michael Brown doesn't see it that way. Neither does Mariano Grinbank. I consider a Mariano a friend of mine he has written many great articles regarding Jewish vs Christian exegesis of Torah and Tanak. I suggest you look to his work as well as continue reading and listening to Michael Brown.
What amazes me is how naive McElhaney is. Of course Brown and Grinbank do not see those text the way Orthodox Jews see them as they are Christians. I do find it very odd that McElhaney doesn't mind mixing it up with me or the Atheist over at debunkingchristianity but oddly enough he doesn't want to present the truth claims of Christianity in Jewish forums. Maybe it's not his cup of tea? I was asked to take a look at Mariano's 'work' about the the true understanding of Genesis 18. How am I to do that when no link is given?
I think the problem here is thegrandverbalizer's naivete. Does it really make sense that now that Michael Brown and Mariano are Christians they stop being Jewish? I also think that the ability to see into my heart is gauge my intent to not want to witness to Jews is sorely lacking considering that he refuses to call Jame White's Dividing Line webcast and repeat some of the silly things he says against his ministry in public on the air. As for links start with http://www.truefreethinker.com/judaism
One thing that is hard for me to take you seriously McElhaney is that I do believe that you do have a good heart no doubt, but I see you more of a cheerleader and a yes man than someone who actually does the leg work.
Your skepticism regarding my scholarship means little considering you argued that the name "Jesus" means "earth pig" in http://www.acommonword.net/2010/08/jesus-christ-or-cesare-borgia-real-da.html where you wrote:
ge, geo = earth where we get the word geodesic or geometry
and sus suis swine; hog, pig sow:
So running around and screaming out the name 'Earth Pig' is just not going to cut it folks!
Don't you have a little more respect for someone you claim to worship as God? If you claim that this person has a name above every name surely it would be a name with dignity and respect?
Is that really good scholarship? What orifice did you pull that argument out of?\
(What orifice did I pull that out of? Ouch! I am going to pretend that McElhaney was not filled with the Holy Spirit when dreaming up this homoerotic statement to be directed at me)
Obviously, this statement offended thegrandverbalizer and I apologize. I could have expressed my feeling much differently and yes, it wasn't the Holy Spirit - a flash of anger. I have to admit that I have never heard such a statement described as "homoerotic" since its about something coming out of orafices instead of going into them.. But if that is the best response you have...okay.
"Jesus" is the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Yeshua". It doesn't take Google to see serious flaws in your argument. "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Earth" or "pig". Come' on. If this enough wasn't worthy of a "FacePalm there is a lot more.
Notice McElhaney didn't give us the Greek transliteration which would be Iseus or Iesus. So basically the 'name above names' is nothing more than a transliteration of a transliteration of a Hebrew/Aramaic name. I'll let the people go and read above and see if the name Jesus has any familiarity with the name Zeus. I'll let the people decide if the Latin word sus (pig, sow) is also not a part of the name of JeSUS. I'll let the people decide who is hiding the truth.
And this is why I was angered. What does the Greek transliteration of Yeshua have to do with the point being discussed. thegrandverbalizer have undercut your own argument. No reason to even remotely think that "Jesus" means "Earth pig", I apologized for the "orifice" remark but thegrandverbalizer should apologize for the "Earth pig" post unless you can offer way more proof for this assertion. I doubt thegrandverbalizer can even find anything on Google to support him on this one. I haven't hidden any truth but maybe thegrandverbalizer should really think about why he would even make such a silly argument.
If your content on using a transliteration of a transliteration that itself should make some people reflect.
" I also know that it was in medieval times that Jews began interpreting Genesis 18 differently than Christians do"
Could you give me some references prior to medieval times that show Orthodox Jews interpreting Genesis 18 in the same way that Christians do?
Check out the the articles Marian posts on his blog I'll give the link again http://www.truefreethinker.com/judaism
See this is where I think serious research stops with you and you simply Google up or look for whom ever it is that agrees with your presupposition.
I did. (meaning I goggled it up to find someone who agrees with me) Look at Mariano's articles and look at how Jewish interpretations of many passages from the Tanak and Torah have changed over time to combat Christian views. There are also many other sources. When I have time I will post them.
Again where are these articles that he keeps talking about? Where are these articles that will show how Jewish interpretation of Genesis 18 (since that was the original subject) changed over time. What was the original interpretation that the Jews gave? When did the Jews change that interpretation? Please give us something solid. Don't just run from an argument that you build upon sand. Either say you made the statement hastily without thinking about it or give us the proof.
Again with link: http://www.truefreethinker.com/judaism And let's talk again about serious scholarship. What proof does the thegrandverbalizer has that tells us that Jews in the first century did not believe that Abraham was visted by Yahweh in the form of an angel in Genesis 18? I hear crickets, y'all.
I have also read over your article.
Let's just start with this piece shall we?
"Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based ON THE IDEA THAT THE QUR'AN GIVES A DIFFERENT DEFINITION and that you don't agree with the definition."
McElhaney could you show me where I say the Qur'an gives a different definition of the Trinity? In fact could you show me any any place where I say the Qur'an defines the Trinity?
Thegreatverbalizer did not say that the Qur'an defines the Trinity. Dr. James White's argument in his debate against Abdullah Al Andalusi was that the Qur'an "misdefines it and thereby refutes a strong man." I was saying that thegreatverbalizer disagreed with the orthodox definition of the Trinity given by Dr. White and if I understand why it was because the Qur'an disagrees with the definition of who and what God is. My point is that the Qur'an doesn't seem to know what the Trinity is. I agree with Dr, James White.
McElhaney would have been better of to simply say the Qur'an disagrees with the definition of who and what God is. That would have been more just to both sides. However notice that he says that White's argument is that the Qur'an misdefines it. First is misdefine a word? Anyway what McElhaney fails to see (due to the amount of time he keeps putting hands on his face) is that even if you "misdefinine" that still means some definition is given. So my argument is still valid and the fact that McElhaney does not see that is only a problem for him. I again ask him to give an example of where the Qur'an gives a definition (accurate or not) of the Trinity. In reality I can't blame McElhaney for not connecting the dots on this. He is getting this 'argument' from James White who in turn got it borrowed it from Zweme
Qur'anic definition if the Trinity: Allah, Jesus, Mary = absolutely wrong. This is what the Qur'an says Christians believe. We don't. So is the grandverbalizer's argument is also wrong. I fail to see why he could not understand what Dr. White was saying.. Oh and by the way "misdefine" is a word. Google it if you don't believe me.
You see James White looks like he is making an intelligent argument to the average person who doesn't give his words much thought. When James White says the Qur'an does not accurately define the Trinity it looks as though he is making a valid point. I mean what is the Muslim to say? No James your wrong the Qur'an accurately defines it. Or Yes James your right the Qur'an does not accurately definite the Trinity, thus giving James the fire power he needs to continue his onslaught against Islam.
For example if I said to Muslims the Bible does not accurately describe the anatomy of a dolphin how would you as a Christian respond? It looks like a made a strong argument. I could see the chuckles coming from the audience (the unwary Muslims not able to detect my deceit at work). You see it looks like a made a factual statement. It looks intelligent and forceful. However, I am sure in my audience there is a Christian some where who is thinking well wait a minute! The Bible doesn't mention dolphins to begin with! The Bible doesn't describe the anatomy of a dolphin to begin with. So how could it inaccurately describe when no attempt is made to describe it! Thus I am caught red handed as is "Dr" James White
Yup, thegrandverbalizer misses 4 important points. The Bible says God is one. Yet the Bible says the Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. No where does it say that Mary is God to be worshiped. Therefore unless thegrandverbalizer can point out a Qur'anic passage that correctly describes the Trinitarian doctrine and why its false, he has failed to refute James White or the Bible. I also would love to hear him call the webcast and to try to make this argument in public to Dr. White. He won't do it though.
McElaheny you said,
"No, I'm not saying that Jesus had two natures. He was human in his physical being. But He was God in Human flesh. Just like you and I are spirits in flesh. Profoundly not the same thing."
Than I am curious how many natures are you saying Jesus had when he was on Earth?
I'm not attempting to give an answer to how many natures Jesus had on Earth. As Christians we often refer to the incarnation as Jesus taking on "an additional nature". For centuries many have attempted to try to explain what that means. To date, I don't think anyone has been able to really explain how Jesus simultaneously man and God. I think the best way to understand it is think of it not as God and Man simultaneously but as God putting on flesh and assimilating into creation. It is a subject that takes a lifetime to study and I intend to keep studying it.
(Well since McElhaney is not attempting to give an answer on how many natures Jesus had, and it is admittedly a subject that 'takes a lifetime to study'. I guess we will leave it at that than!)
If thegrandverbalizer can explain how light is a particle and wave at the same time and what we should call it, I'll be more than happy to answer how many natures Jesus has.
You also asked McElhaney "Where did Paul say that?"
Well if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 you will see it's not very far away from the text you are quoting. It says,
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50I have read all of 1 Corinthians 15 and it is one of my favorite passages. The point Paul makes is that the perishable is changed into imperishable and the corruptible becomes incorruptible. If you are going to quote the Bible quote the entire thought. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58
(I honestly do not see what McElhaney is so charged up about. He makes it look as if I misquoted something which is quite dishonest on his behalf. You can see how this subject came about here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/jesus-created-or-uncreated-anthony.html If you scroll down to the comment section McElhaney made the comment October 1, 2010 3:14 AM
which conveniently McElhaney leaves this out. McElhaney was simply ignorant of the fact that the Bible says 'flesh and blood' cannot enter the kingdom of the heaven. He simply made an inquiry 'where does it say that' and I quoted to him where it was at. It is not required of me to quote the text surrounding the quote. Because we are not discussing the context of the quote. He simply asked where it was. So if he is embarrassed that he didn't know about that statement there is no need to have animosity towards me.
Nope, I wasn't thegrandverbalizer accusing of misquoting - just ignoring the context of the passage. He did not say anything about vs 51-58 . Of course flesh and blood can't enter heaven. But the resurrection which verses 51-58 describes tells us how we will enter heaven in new physical bodies. No animosity. I wanted to know how he was going to spin that out of 1 Corinthians 15 without talking about the resurrection.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."Paul does not say what these new bodies would be made of but we know that it will be a physical reality. Not something imaginary.
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
McElhaney I can see you struggling guy.
You see where you say above, "Of course Jesus shed his blood... but that doesn't make Jesus created. No one made Him. WE ARE CREATED-MIND BODY AND SOUL. Jesus' mind and soul was not."
Notice you said, "Jesus' mind and soul was not........his body silence! Interesting indeed. Wonder why you didn't complete the thought?
I said it several times. Go back and look at my comments that you did not quote from. I'll keep saying it. Jesus' body was created in time. So what? That doesn't make Jesus created. This is another "FacePalm" passage.
(Hm-mm but I bet if I asked who died on the cross? It would get interesting. Was it Jesus body or was it Jesus himself? Did Jesus simply give the appearance that he died. In fact McElhaney doesn't believe that Jesus body is really Jesus! McElhaney gave the analogy that Jesus body is simply his clothes! Jesus put on a human body as one puts on clothes. - Hebrews 10:5-7 You can see that statement here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/jesus-created-or-uncreated-anthony.html If you go to the comment section. You will notice September 28, 2010 11:49 PM(I mean after all Jesus body is not really Jesus it's his clothes says McElhaney. So did Jesus die on the cross or was it his clothes (body) or was it really God that died?
Yes, let's examine that. Who did die on the cross. Jesus. Did God die on the cross. No. He asked who died on the cross..not what. I've been arguing that we don't think of ourselves as just physical. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all agree we have an eternal soul and a temporal body. It was Jesus' temporal body that died on the cross. Just like when any of us dies, our souls return to our maker and our bodies decay and disintegrate.However Jesus did not stay dead.
McElhaney you said, "Here is the problem. You are separating out Jesus' humanity and his divinity."
So did Jesus have two natures one human and one divine? Or did he have one nature fully human and fully divine?
Not only is thegrandverbalizer attempting to separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity, he attempts to play them against one another as if there is some conflict in logic. Desperate and lame. I think it best to answer this as Paul did nearly 2000 years ago.
So if I am attempting to separate them is this an admission that Jesus humanity and divinity are one or not?) (Did Jesus have two natures or one nature" Seems like for McElhaney the verdict is still out because in his own words he " is taking a life time to study the issue."
No thegrandverbalizer's attempt to separate Jesus' humanity and divinity is trying to assert a contradiction where there is none. We have physical bodies and spirits. Again Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to this and Atheists and agnostics deny this. Doe this mean thegrandverblizer have two natures or one?
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15-20Oh and "firstborn" is referring to Jesus' preeminence. Don't get it twisted.
Why do you think the all-knowing and powerful creator who inspired this text simply didn't say the 'first' over all creation? Why say the 'firstborn'? Just curious your thoughts on this.
I've got to wonder who said "firstborn" refers to being created. In the context of the Bible, it means first over all creation. For example David was referred to as Jesse's firstborn son but we know he was the youngest. David may have been the youngest but he was also preeminent. Jesus was not created but he is preeminent this is what Colossian 1:15-20 is saying.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Even Jesus Thinks Your Doing It Wrong!
