BRO ELI: JESUS STRIPPED OFF HIS GOD STATUS

Indeed, he said that in one of his bible exposition. What basis? This one:

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Clearly, it is testified that Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God meaning, his form or nature is equally God.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”

But then, he stripped off his inherent God status. Logically, he became a servant which is not a nature of the divine gods.

“But made himself of no reputation”

The Greek rendition of it is:

all (but) heauton (self) ekenOsen (empties)

Rightly translated, it should have been like this:

but empties himself

THE COMPLETE TEXT:

“ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But empties himself and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:”

Clearly, what it implied by “stripping off his god status” is in that essence of abasing himself as a servant so what it means by “stripping off his god status” is not the way it seem at face value that he was not God anymore but in essence a god who shed his equality with the father.

The problem is it clearly said this:

HE EMPTIES HIMSELF=STRIPPED OFF HIS GOD STATUS

COULD IT BE THAT THE PHRASE “EMPTIES HIMSELF” IS INDEED AS A FORM OF ABASING HIMSELF AND NOT REALLY DISCARDING HIS NATURE AS GOD? (CAN NATURE BE DISCARDED? OF COURSE NOT!)

“ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But empties himself and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:”

COULD IT BE THAT THE PHRASE “EMPTIES HIMSELF” IS INDEED AS A FORM OF ABASING HIMSELF, MEANING STRIPPING OFF HIS EQUALITY WITH GOD ONLY AND NOT REALLY DISCARDING HIS NATURE AS GOD?

Yes, if it is figurative and not literal.

How so?

“but empties himself”

all (but) heauton (self) ekenOsen (empties)

EMPTIES IN GREEK IS EKENOSEN WHICH HAS A ROOT WORD “KENOO”.

kenoo  ken-o’-o

from G2756;

to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.

IF YOU CAN SEE THE ROOT WORD, “TO MAKE EMPTY” CAN BE USED FIGURATIVELY TO MEAN “TO ABASE”  THATS WHY THE WORD “EMPTIES” CAN BE USED FIGURATIVELY AS SUGGESTED BY THE USAGE OF THE ROOT WORD THUS THE STRIPPING OFF THE GOD STATUS IS NOT ACTUALLY LITERAL BUT FIGURATIVE WHICH IS RATHER TO ABASE HIMSELF OR IN SHORT, TO STRIP OFF HIS EQUALITY WITH GOD YET STILL IN HIS NATURE AS GOD.

“to make empty, i.e. (figuratively) to abase”

As you can see, bro eli never said, that literally Jesus stripped off his nature as God that he was not God anymore bec noone can strip off nature, He simply mean, in the figurative sense, Jesus stripped off his god status that is in essense of terminology is, he abase himself or in short, stripped off his equality with god yet still retained his natural status, that is, God!

Why do we say, that its figurative and not literal?

Firstly bec the root word terminology defined it that way. Secondly, bec biblical context presented Jesus as still a true God during the time he stripped off his equality with God as it say:

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come…This is the true God, and eternal life.

1Jn 1:2 that eternal life, which was with the Father, 

Jn 14:6  I am the way, the truth, and the life (ETERNAL): 

Therefore as conclusion, in the figurative sense, stripping off his god status simply means stripping off only his equality with God yet still in his nature as God though in the lesser sense as he became servant which is not a nature of the divine gods.

Why did I use a root word to support my argument?

BEC THE ROOT WORD IS A REFERENCE IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT USED AS THE SOURCE BELOW SUGGESTED: (though it is about the Hebrew OT but I guess its likewise applicable with the NT Greek.)

Advertisements

EXPLAINING PILLARS OF THE EARTH

Atheists assumed a scientific incongruence when bible expressed the concept “pillars of the earth”. They insinuate the thought “columns supporting the earth”. But neither did the bible insinuate any concept of pillars as literal columns. It could be metaphor. Indeed it is. Let me show you…

Typing pillars of the earth on the KJV app, these ones appear:

Having no immediate context to validate if pillars of the earth was expressed in literal or metaphor terms, we cannot therefore assessed if indeed its literal or metaphor. So how should we resolve it convincingly? The only way is through biblical context.

The biblical way to establish if a biblical text is literal or metaphor is:

  • TO MAKE INQUIRY FIRST BEFORE CONCLUSION
  • INQUIRY INCLUDES NATURE

In biblical context, the way to assessed a seemingly scientific text is that to make considerate enquiry first before conclusion as it say:

Proverbs 20:25

[25]It is a snare to the man who yala (inconsiderately utter) that which is holy, and afterwards vows to make enquiry.

Enquiry is a comprehensive research and study for conclusion in all fields approved by the bible and that includes nature (i.e natural science) as nature is an integration of faith as nature is one of our teacher, as it say:

1 Corinthians 11:14

[14]Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Therefore any biblical pronouncement must be enquired upon, researched and assessed with the appropriate fields and that includes nature before making considerate conclusion as yala (inconsiderately utter) is not recommended. Meaning, comparing biblical pronouncements to nature or natural science whereas any contradiction, would makes the biblical pronouncement as not literally scientific whereas any congruence would make it literally scientific. Meaning, we must consult first with nature if such biblical pronouncement is in congruence with nature or not. In short, whatever is coherent with science is literal, that is, literally scientific whereas whatever is not, could be a metaphor as we are to make inquiry first with nature before conclusion so as recommended. Pillars of the earth as literal columns is incoherent with nature thus accdg to the biblical principle of “enquiring it with nature before conclusion” is an incorrect notion therefore it must be interpreted otherwise, as metaphor.

How is pillars of the earth a metaphor?

Accdg to the verses below, pillars of the earth is where people inhabitates, and these are most probably mountains as it say:

Job 9:5-6

[5]Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger.

[6]Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Accdg to this verse, mountains are pillars of the earth, as it was overturned thus it trembles so as the pillars are, thus most probably, mountains are pillars.

1 Samuel 2:8

[8]He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the tebel (inhabitants) upon them.

According to this verse, people inhabits the pillars of the earth. If its a literal column such as a cylindrical column as support of the earth, attached to it and protruding to the sky, how could people inhabits it? Impossible. Therefore, its not a literal column. Most probably mountains as it is the only biblical hint that is coherent with nature.

With the principle “to avoid inconsiderate conclusion but to inquire first with nature before conclusion” the atheist concept fails whereas supportive of the notion “pillars are mountains” as the only biblical hint in coherent with nature.

Conclusively, pillars of the earth is a metaphor most probably of mountains. We come to this bec never did god directly claimed that pillars are literal columns but instead said, to enquire first with nature before any considerate conclusion, meaning, to see which is coherent with nature, and if it does must then be taken in its literal essence whereas, incoherently, it must be taken otherwise, as metaphor.

Proverbs 20:25

[25]It is a snare to the man who yala (inconsiderately utter) that which is holy, and afterwards vows to make enquiry.

1 Corinthians 11:14

[14]Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

GOSPEL OF BARNABAS DEBATE: DIAMAL NHORDZ VS DENNIS BUTIC

​Nhordz G Diamal > ‎DEBATE RELIGION (Khilafah vs Kuffar)

Gospel of barnabas

Patutunayan daw sa atin ni junjun na ito ay kontra sa islam,,

 — with Junjun Manalo Alcalde.

22 hrs · Public

Dennis Butic

Kung to too ang Quran at to too ang g.of Barnabas bakit magkakontra?

Like · Reply · Edit · 11 hours ago

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… Hahahah… Ano kamo???

Hindi mo pinatulan…??? Ang LAKI mong TANGA!

Hahahahah… PINATULAN mo nga, eh!!! 

AYAN, O… IKAW MISMO ANG NAG POST…

Na… Sabi mo…: PATUNAYAN ko na CONTRA…

ang Gospel of Barnabas sa ISLAM… Diba?

NASAAN ba yung aral or teaching ng Islam…? 

Ang aral or teaching ng Islam ay nasa QURAN…!

* ETO ANG DALAWA NA CONTRAHAN.

1. Sabi sa Quran… “MESSIAH” si Jesus.

2. Sabi naman sa Gospel of Barnabas…

TINANGGI ni Jesus na siya ay “MESSIAH”…!

3. Sabi sa Quran… 

Nakaranas ng ” CHILD BIRTH PAINS” si Mary sa panganganak.

4. Sabi sa Gospel of Barnabas…

HINDI nakaranas ng “CHILD BIRTH PAINS” si Mary sa panganganak.

*** O, ANO… MAY REKLAMO KA PA BA, HA?

UNGAS ka kasi… GINASA MO LANG ANG SARILI MO SA SARILI MO DING MANTIKA!!! 

Hahahahah… TANGA!!! BOINKS!?!

Ang TANGA TANGA mo… Hangang hanga AKO!

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

Now kung ito ay dagdag lang ng muslin hindi ito sasabihin ng mohammad is messiah,

Hindi kasi alam ng muslim anu at sinu ang messiah,

So again hindi muslim ang author,

Now about sa salungatan nito sa quran,

Actually that is not the point here,,

Ang point ay bakit isinulat ng author ang pangalang mohammad na susunod kay hesus?

This is a big question mark here,,

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Dennis Butic

Bakit may Muhammad? Dahil after the time of Muhammad yan kaya Mali ang historian na before yan ni Muhammad. Ipakita mo carbon dating niyan.

Like · Reply · Edit · 11 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

Yes patutunayan mo,but still the fact is di mo napatunayan, 

So what kung magsalungat ung ibang passage dto,

That is not a big problem here,

Kasi ultimo bible mo ay ganun din sa quran,salungat din,

But ang tanong na di masagot sagot dto ay bakit may mohammad sa gospel of barnabas gayong ang author ay di kilala ang propeta?

So on that sense,

Napoprove dto na meron mohammad sa previous scripture, 

Thats it,

So how can u convince me on ur answer if my belief become strong on that gospel??^_^

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Dennis Butic

Anong previous scripture to?

Like · Reply · Edit · 11 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

Well according to u before mohammad,

But thats not what the sources said

And even if the logical thinking 

Kung naisulat itn ng sumulat after the time of prophet

Then messiah is not mohammad,so the author is obviously not muslim,

But again the gospel itself exist sa panahon wala pa ang propeta

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… I-REFUTE MO KASI…!!!

PATUNAYAN MO NA HINDI NGA NAG-CONTRAHAN…!!!

*** ETO ULI… Narrated by Junjun Manalo Alcalde…

Authentic itong narration ko na ito… BASAHIN mo, Nhordz.

Hahahah… Ano kamo???

Hindi mo pinatulan…??? Ang LAKI mong TANGA!

Hahahahah… PINATULAN mo nga, eh!!! 

AYAN, O… IKAW MISMO ANG NAG POST…

Na… Sabi mo…: PATUNAYAN ko na CONTRA…

ang Gospel of Barnabas sa ISLAM… Diba?

NASAAN ba yung aral or teaching ng Islam…? 

Ang aral or teaching ng Islam ay nasa QURAN…!

* ETO ANG DALAWA NA CONTRAHAN.

1. Sabi sa Quran… “MESSIAH” si Jesus.

2. Sabi naman sa Gospel of Barnabas…

TINANGGI ni Jesus na siya ay “MESSIAH”…!

3. Sabi sa Quran… 

Nakaranas ng ” CHILD BIRTH PAINS” si Mary sa panganganak.

4. Sabi sa Gospel of Barnabas…

HINDI nakaranas ng “CHILD BIRTH PAINS” si Mary sa panganganak.

*** O, ANO… MAY REKLAMO KA PA BA, HA?

UNGAS ka kasi… GINASA MO LANG ANG SARILI MO SA SARILI MO DING MANTIKA!!! 

Hahahahah… TANGA!!! BOINKS!?!

Ang TANGA TANGA mo… Hangang hanga AKO!

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

Hayaan nyo na si Junjun Manalo Alcalde kasi nagmukhang tanga sa usapin^_^

Like · Reply · Report · 11 hours ago

Dennis Butic

At paano mo nasabing the gospel exist na wala pang propeta?

Dahil sa historian!?

Kung dahil lang Jan at alam nating me errors ang mga historian so doubtful ngayon ang g, of Barnabas kasi historian ang nagpatotoo malibang me supporting evidence pero kung wala EDI doubtful na ang g. Of Barnabas

SO BAKIT NATIN GAGAMITIN AS BASIS ANG ISANG DOUBTFUL MATERIAL PARA PATUNAYAN SI MUHAMMAD?

Like · Reply · Edit · 11 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

Now you can said it to deny the fact,pero ang mga scholars na ito ay pinag aralan nila ang mga apocryphal book,
So kung mali sila,
Mali din ang gospel of thomas kasi naisulat din ito sa aklat nila, at ung 32 books of clement mali din kasi sila din ay kinolekta itoN
Gusto mo bang ipahiwatig na nag cr lng sila at hindi nag aral?
Oo naniniwala sila na ito ay apocryphal gospel,but the fact is even na ito ay apocryphal book ang punto ay nandun na ito kahit wala pa ang propeta^_/

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 9:58pm

Dennis Butic

Malay ko Nhordz G Diamal basta doubtful wag mong gamitin, ngayon provide evidence na to too ang g.of Barnabas.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 9:59pm

Dennis Butic

Malay natin baka corrupted version lang yan ng tunay na gospel of Barnabas. Nagiisa yata yang biglang sumulpot. Basta ba biglang sumulpot e tama na? Me Quran din biglang sumulpot na kakontra ng uthmanic Quran, yung Sana’a palimpsest Quran . tama rin ba yon?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:02pm

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… Pa English English ka pa diyan…???

Hahahahah… BOUNKS!?! SCRIPT naman yang mga nilalatag mo! At, lecture ng UNGAS na ustad.
*** DALAWANG TALATA LANG… 
1. Dalawa sa Gospel of Barnabas… At… dalawa sa Quran… 

Na… NAG-CONTRAHAN… Hindi mo ma-trouble-shoot sa pamamagitan ng TAQIYYAH TACTICS.
2. KASI… ISA LANG ANG SOLUTION SA PROBLEMA MO…

YUN AY WALANG IBA KUNDI… MAGING HONEST AT TRUTHFUL KA SA TALAKAYAN…!!!
3. Kaya, tigilan mo na yang PANLI-LINLANG mo sa talakayan!

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:04pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Ito Dennis Butic
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church asserts:
Gospel of Barnabas was declared a rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96]. 
So here even the history tell us in different time,ay ganun din ang sinabi,
Kaya ikaw jn Junjun Manalo Alcalde

Wag kang sumali kasi nakakahiya ka

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:05pm

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… BUKING ka na… “Two-Face”. Toinks!?!

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:06pm

Dennis Butic

Yes Nhordz G Diamal me original gospel of Barnabas pero yang nadiskubreng g, of Barnabas ba e original text yan o corrupted?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:06pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Here is the another proof,this is not my own sources, but the christian sources itself
In 478AD, the fourth year of Emperor Zeno, the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand.
Acia Sanctorum Borland Junii Tom II, pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:07pm

Dennis Butic

Asan yan!?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:08pm

Dennis Butic

Note: me mga sinungaling na historian.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:09pm

Dennis Butic

Yun ngang sulat ng historian na si Josephus pinagdedebatehan at sinabing corrupted e so me corruption sa works ng mga historian!

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:12pm

Nhordz G Diamal

So here makikita na ntn na admitado na si Dennis Butic,na meron ngang gospel of barnabas,
Ahehhee ngaun nasaan na un?
Kung hindi un corrupted noon,bakit di isinali sa canon?
Hmmp,
Perp ang totoo ang gospel of barnabas ay exist na sa panahon lumipas,at itong pangalan ng propeta ay nandoon na pero un nga lang messiah ang sinabi,
So this is not the problem in islamic world kasi mali man ito o hindi still nag exist ang propeta doon,,^_^

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:12pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Hindi ko kinoconvert si Dennis Butic tangang Junjun Manalo Alcalde
Gusto ko lng bgyan ng doubt ang kanyang pananampalataya gaya mo na wala ka ng magawa ni dimo nga masabi sa akin na bakit may mohammad sa gospel of barnabas, ,^_^

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:13pm

Uy Salam Candido

Midyo bc ako ngaun pero bukas Ccgurohin ko na nag kokontrahan ang Gospel of Barnabas at Quran .Hehehe
Halimbawa nalang Nhordz G Diamal
فَقَضَىٰهُنَّ سَبۡعَ سَمَٰوَاتٖ فِي يَوۡمَيۡنِ وَأَوۡحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَآءٍ أَمۡرَهَاۚ وَزَيَّنَّا ٱلسَّمَآءَ ٱلدُّنۡيَا بِمَصَٰبِيحَ وَحِفۡظٗاۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقۡدِيرُ ٱلۡعَزِيزِ ٱلۡعَلِيمِ

And He(((( completed them as seven heavens))))) within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.

[Fussilat:12]

[Translation – Sahih International]
Ayon Diyan Sa Surah na niyan May 7heaven . Samantalang ang Gospel of Barnabas. Paragraph 105 :176 mayroon 9 na Langit . 🙂

Like · 1 · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:14pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Uy Salam Candido so what,
Is that make islam is false,?
That is not the point at all,,^_^
Ok sabihin ntn may mali sa gospel of barnabas,
Then the big question mark is
THE NAME OF MOHAMMAD IS THERE?
why?
Anu un nagkamali ang author,
Saan nya napulot ang mohammad na name?
That is a big question here

Edited · Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:15pm

Dennis Butic

Ipakita mo Nhordz G Diamal na sa original gospel of Barnabas e me Muhammad?
At tsaka dios ang namili ng tamang canon ISAIAH 34:16

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:16pm

Nhordz G Diamal

My mga proof na corrupted nga ang sulat ni josephus,

Ibngay ko na sau ang proof,
Pero ang nakakatuwa dto na dapat mong bgyan ng pansin Dennis Butic ay 
Kung may panahon wala pa ang kristo ay mag nagdidiOs na sa pangalan nya,un ang kataka taka,
Paanu sya dinidios eh hindi pa sya exist sa panahon na un,
Un ang may punto, ^_^
Gaya ng propeta,
Wla pa ang propeta,bakit naisulat na sa gospel of barnabas ang name nya,^_^

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:17pm

Dennis Butic

Yung libro na me Muhammad is 14th century lang hinde yan yung original na g.of Barnabas so possibly corrupted.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:18pm

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… Boinks!?! Hahahahah…
O, AYAN ang isa pang CONTRAHAN…!!! 

TUNGKOL SA HEAVEN! (7 heavens against 9 heavens)… Magandang I-TUMBOK yan sa Jueteng! Hahahah… Toinks!?!
*** ANO KAMO??? 

NANDOON (sa Gospel of Barnabas) ang “propeta”.

Sinong “propeta”… si Muhammad ba, ha? Toinks!?! Heheheh…

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:18pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Now ibngay ko na sau ang talata,, Dennis Butic na ung gospel of barnabas ay exist na sa panahon lumipas

Ngaun itong gospel of barnabas na ito ay makikita mong noong 4rth century ay lumabas na ito,at un ngaun ang makikita ntn ngaun,,
Sasabihin mong corrupted,now i can also use this argument to u,,
Ngaun ang nagcompiled ng bible mo ay mga sabihin ntn mga alagad ng Dios
Ipakita mo sa akin na ung compiled nila ay gaya ng nasa kamay mo,
Dali

Edited · Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:20pm

Dennis Butic

Corrupted na nga kaya kahit ano pwedeng ilagay.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:20pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Now ibngay ko na sau ang talata,, Dennis Butic na ung gospel of barnabas ay exist na sa panahon lumipas

Ngaun itong gospel of barnabas na ito ay makikita mong noong 4rth century ay lumabas na ito,at un ngaun ang makikita ntn ngaun,,
Sasabihin mong corrupted,now i can also use this argument to u,,
Ngaun ang nagcompiled ng bible mo ay mga sabihin ntn mga alagad ng Dios
Ipakita mo sa akin na ung compiled nila ay gaya ng nasa kamay mo,
Dali

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:20pm

Nhordz G Diamal

So again Dennis Butic
Ang fact ay ang gospel of barnabas is exist sa panahon wala pa ang propeta,at hindi muslim ang may gawa nitong aklat na ito,
That is the fact

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:21pm

Dennis Butic

Existing nga daw yung g.of Barnabas sa apochrypal books, tama ba? Pero yung ipinapakita niyong g. Of Barnabas na kakadiskubre lang e 14th century lang so asan yung original para ikumpara natin kung may Muhammad?
RE BIBLE
ang sabi ng dios titipunin niya ang mga sulat niya bilang isa at hinde mangangailangan ng karagdagan…
So dios ang tumipon

Logically, bakit macocorrupt e dios ang tumipon?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:26pm

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Nhordz G Diamal… Who wrote the Gospel of Barnabas?
The content of the Gospel of Barnabas provides us with the best evidence for who wrote it. As we have seen the content, method, and style of this book are highly similar to the Gospel According to Islam written by Ahmad Shafaat. Since we know that Ahmad Shafaat is a Muslim, it is most likely that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas was also a Muslim who rewrote the Gospel in a similar way to Ahmad Shafaat. Who else but a Muslim would want to make the Gospel agree with Islam?

Like · 1 · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:28pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Again Dennis Butic noong 14 century ay nadescover ito,nadescover means hindi kinurrupt,,nadescover nga lng ito eh,and still the fact is exist na ito sa panahon lumipas,
Now kung hinahanap mo ung pinagmulan nito,maaring hindi lng isa ito,at maaring hindi na nag exist ito sa panahon ngaun since ang mga gospel na iba ay sinunog ng mga early church father,so amg daming nasunog,it is possible na kasama na dun ung pinaka matandang gospel of barnabas,
Now again ibabalik ko sau ang tanong,
Ipakita mo sa akin na ung gospel of mateo mark luke and john mo ay sya rin ung kinompiled ng mga alagad ng Dios mo noon?
At assuming na ung Dios ang nagpatipon,ok ung tinipon sa unang panahon ay syang inspired,hindi ung panahon ngaun kasi corrupted na ito,
Kung hindi corrupted
Ipakita mo sa akin ang original na kinompiled at ikumpara ntn,,

Dennis Butic

Ngayon Nhordz G Diamal inaamin mong possibleng corrupted version yang existing g. Of Barnabas, so doubtful! Bakit ka gagamit ng doubtful material to prove Muhammad?
RE BIBLE
ANG BIBLE BA NAGBAGO FROM ORIGINAL?

HINDE. KASI DIOS ANG TUMIPON DITO BILANG ISANG KASULATAN KAYA HINDE MAGBABAGO FROM ORIGINAL TO COPIES OF THE COPIES ETC,,.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:35pm

Nhordz G Diamal

In fact ang gospel of barnabas ay hindi po islam ang kanyang kaparehu,
Kundi ang ot mismo Junjun Manalo Alcalde
1 ang God sa gospel of barnabas is only one
That is biblical
2 wala pong original sin sa gospel of barnabas, again that is biblical
3) ang propeta mohammad ay tinawag na messiah,again that is biblical,kasi ang mga propeta sa ot ay tinawag na messiah
4) si ismael ay propeta ng Dios,
Again that is biblical, 
5) hindi si hesus ang naipako,that is biblical (psalm 91:8)
So hindi po islam ang tinutukoi dto kundi bible mismo ang sinasang ayunan

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:36pm

Dennis Butic

Mali po

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:37pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Again Dennis Butic hindi ko ginagamit ang gospel of barnabas to prove my faith
The question mark here is
Why mohammad is there?
That is the question,,^_^

Now again sabi mo hindi corrupted ang bible
Still my challenge stand
Ipakita mo sa akin ang four gospels na kinompiled at ikumpara natin sa bible mo na hawak hawak mo ngaun?

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:38pm

Dennis Butic

Eto sagot
ISAIAH 34:16 DIOS ANG TUMIPON SA OLD AT NEW TESTAMENT
MACOCORRUPT BA ANG TINIPON NG DIOS?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:39pm

Nhordz G Diamal

So again Dennis Butic ipakita mo sa akin ung mateo mark luke and john na kinompiled para makumpara ntn,
Bakit dmo magawa??^_^

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:46pm

Nhordz G Diamal

About sa corruption ng gospel of barnabas, kaya para sau ay mali,
Then how about ur own gospel 
Ep sander said
Ang resurrection ay hindi kailanman inaral ni hesus sa panahon nya,ito ay dagdag lang sa 4 gospels 
If u study the bible itself
It is quite true, 
Why?
In luke 24:11 ay makikita mong di makapaniwala ang apostle sa balitang si hesus ay nabuhay,naschocked sila at sinabi nilang walang kabuluhan ang balita,
Hello,

What happen to the apostle?
Nakalimutan ba nila ang aral ni hesus na sya ay mabubuhay ?
Hindi,
Kasi ang totoo di nila un alam kasi nga nashocked sila sa balitang si hesus nabuhay

Edited · Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:53pm

Dennis Butic

Wala na nga Nhordz G Diamal yung mga yon pero nagiwan ang dios ng assurance na hinde macocorrupt kasi nga dios ang tumipon para pagaralan at basahin! IS 34:16

SINABI YAN MANY YEARS BEFORE MAGING TOTOONG NATIPON NGA, SO PAANONG NANGYARI YON? MIRACLE.

The bible itself is a miracle. So totoong dios ang tumipon 
Ang tinipon ng dios ba para daw pagaralan e macocorrupt?

Natural hinde so kahit wala yung original yung copies na natipon e hinde corrupt. Ano yun? Dalawang uri. Yung me Alexandrian text type at me byzantine text type. 
Dalawang uri yan 

Halimbawa ng Alexandrian text type e yung NIV 

Halimbawa ng byzantine e KJV
so asan yung natipong yun na basis for KJV at NIV?
Preserved sa mga museum. Habang yung g. Of Barnabas, asan yung hinde corrupted?

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:55pm

Dennis Butic

Tapos na tayo about resurrection of Jesus Nhordz G Diamal wag mong isingit.

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 10:57pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Ok tapos kana magsalita?
So ibgay mo na ang compiled mismo ng mga pinili kamo ng Dios
Para makumpara natin,
Cge na,,^_

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:58pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Dennis Butic that is answer to Junjun Manalo Alcalde pero baka gusto mong tulungan walang problema,willing akong erefute ka gaya ng dati,^_^

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 10:58pm

Dennis Butic

Scholar ka ba Nhordz G Diamal? Puntahan mo ang mga preserved manuscripts, yung result ng mga textual criticism ng mga scholars, doon mo makita,
Pero kahit wala yan, yung ISAIAH 34:16 MISMO ang proof dahil iniutos ng dios na yang tinipon e babasahin at pagaralan meaning, after matipon, dapat babasahin at pagaralan, so sa panahong tinipon let say 300AD up to present dapat open yan for reading kaya paano gagawin ng Israel yan ? Di ba kailangan I reproduce so dahil hinde macocorrupt yan, mairereproduce exactly as it is. Pero mareproduce lang ng Tama ng tamang bible. Kaya kahit reproduction lang e exactly as the basis kasi nga me assurance na itoy para basahin at pagaralan ng Israel!

Edited · Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 11:13pm

Dennis Butic

Ayon nga Kay James white na scholar ang Quran walang mga lumang copies to trace the authenticity pero sa bible meron!
So ayon Kay James white me paraan para ikumpara ang mga bible ngayon sa mga lumang manuscripts.
Siguro napanood mo yon Nhordz G Diamal

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 11:17pm

Dennis Butic

Isaiah 34:16 basahin at pagaralan. Kung gagawin yan ng buong Israel masisira kasi delicate and fragile ang mga ito. SO KAILANGAN NG REPRODUCTION! YUNG MGA GREEK/HEBREW BIBLE NGAYON!

Like · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 11:20pm

Nhordz G Diamal

Ang quran ay hindi kailangan ang manuscripts kasi napreserve ito through memorization ,,

Si james white admitado na wala ang mark 16:9-20 at john 8,ito ay forgery,
So how did u know na ung iba hindi forgery,maskis si ep sander admitado na ung resurrection ay hindi kailanman nag exist na turo ni hesus,
Wla yan ayon sa knyang pag aaral,,,
Now again,ipakita mo dto ung original na kinompiled mismo ng mga pinili ng Dios kamo,
Bakit hanggang ngaun dmo mailabas,

Like · Reply · Report · Yesterday at 11:38pm

Dennis Butic

Nhordz G Diamal hinde ko maipakita ang mga kinompile ng dios. Pero dahil sinabi niya na ito ay babasahin at pagaaralan ng mga bansa ang tinutukoy nito logically ay hinde mga manuscripts kasi impossibleng pagaralan yan ng lahat ng mga tao kasi masisira kasi fragile ang mga manuscript, madaling masira kaya logically yung tinutukoy ng dios e mga REPRODUCTION lang ng mga manuscripts. Dahil pinababasa ng dios ang mga reproduction kaya natural hinde ito corrupted at reliable ito. Pinababasa nga ng dios e. 

Kaya kahit wala yung manuscripts merong kinasihan ng dios pa rin na mga REPRODUCTION. 

At sa mga reproduction, me mga errors din tulad ng iba na me mga mark16:9-20. Hinde problema yon kasi me holy spirit na guide para malaman ang mga tamang texsto. 

So hinde kailangan alam mo ang mga laman ng mga manuscript dahil me holy spirit na guide para malaman ang tamang textsto sa mga reproduction.

Like · 1 · Reply · Edit · 8 hours ago

Junjun Manalo Alcalde

* Juan Likas Makabayan… NO CHOICE si Nhordz G Diamal…

Kundi tanggapin ang Gospel of Barnabas, kasi… TINANGGAP na at GINAMIT pa to prove the “prophethood” of Muhammad no matter who wrote it or how the Gospel of Barnabas came into existence, nang mga Muslim scholars, academe and Islam authority and defenders.

That being said… NO CHOICE siya but to argue it out to defend and prove otherwise the dilemma of Islam.

Edited · Like · Reply · Report · 8 hours ago

Dennis Butic

ETO PROOF NA PINABABASA NG DIOS SA MGA TAO ANG WRITING OF GOD. LOGICALLY, MANUSCRIPTS YUNG WRITING OF GOD PERO DAHIL IMPOSSIBLENG MABASA NG MGA TAO DAHIL FRAGILE ANG MGA ITO KAYA LOGICALLY ANG PINABABASA NG DIOS E MGA REPRODUCTION!

PINABABASA IT MEANS HINDE CORRUPTED. 

Isaiah 34:1,16

[1]Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

[16]Seek ye out of the WRITING of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them (THE MANUSCRIPTS)

Like · Reply · Edit · 8 hours ago

Nhordz G Diamal

So far nag kwento nlng si Dennis Butic hindi nya maprove sa atin na ang bible nya ay salita ng Dios,dahil ba sinabi sa isaiah 34:16 na isinulat ay ito na ung bible mo?

Weak argument, unless napatunayan mong bible mo ay hindi corrupted,,

Now ang mark 16:9-20 ay dagdag lamang ito,maraming naniniwala dto na pumanaw kasi nandito ito sa kjv,at guess what sa kjv meron din isaiah 36 pero ung mga nangamatay ay naniwala sa mark 16:9-20,,naloko sila ng Dios mo sa isaiah 34 at sa rev 22:18-19 since sila ay naniniwala sa may dagdag,imperno sila,,

Sabi mo guided ng holy spirit,pero sad to say na ang holy spirit na yan na gumagabay ay hindi kailanman nag exist kasi kung guided ito,sana alam na un ng mga author ng kjv na wala ito,,pero dinagdag nila,,..Kaya hirao na hirap mong patunayan sa akin na new testament mo ay salita ng Dios

In fact si pablo mismo admitado na ung salita nya ay hindi sa Dios,,bagkus sarili lamang nya,^_^

Like · Reply · Report · 4 hours agoago

Dennis Butic

 Ngayon tingnan natin paanong talo na naman si Nhordz. Una he implied Quran and Gospel of Barnabas is in harmony pero naipakita ni junjun na kontra sila. Tapos nagpalusot si nhordz na kahit pa me contradiction pero paanong nahulaan ng g. Of Barnabas si muhammad e nasulat ito bago lumitaw si Muhammad ayon sa historian. Kaso yung g. Of Barnabas na ginagamit nila e hinde yung original text kundi maaaring corrupted version na sinulat after the time of Muhammad. Without the way to verify kung corrupted or not therefore it is doubtful as evidence. G.of Barnabas is therefore doubtful. Pero me historian daw na nagpatotoo na before Muhammad yung G. of Barnabas. Pero nakaligtaan niyang patunayan na yung meron ngayon ay before Muhammad nga sinulat o kopya lang ito na sinulat after Muhammad na maaaring corrupted na.

So hinde niya napatunayan  na reliable yung G. Of Barnabas kung Saab nasasaad si Muhammad bilang messiah.

Dahil don nagdivert siya sa bible. Kung yung G.of Barnabas daw na kopya e walang mga original text to verify with, bakit yung bible ngayon sa Greek/Hebrew text e saan yung compiled ng dios na manuscripts para ikumpara kung exactly e parehas.

Ang sagot ko e ito:

Isaiah 34:1,16

[1]Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

[16]Seek ye out of the WRITING of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want an additional one, for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them (THE MANUSCRIPTS)

Ayon sa verse, ang lahat ng writing ng dios (manuscripts) e tinipon niya bilang isang bilang na hinde nangangailangan ng karagdagang religious materials. Ito yung mga manuscripts ng OT at NT na makikita sa history na natipon bilang biblical materials kasi ang kabuuan nito ay hinde nangangailangan ng dagdag na religious materials as it say:

none shall want an additional one, 
Ang mga manuscripts na ito, dahil dios ang tumipon ay hinde pwedeng corrupted dahil dios ang tumipon as it say:

and his spirit it hath gathered them (THE MANUSCRIPTS)
Ang mga ito ay pinababasa sa maraming bansa at tao as it say:

Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

[16]Seek ye out of the WRITING of the LORD, and read: 

Imposibleng ang tinutukoy na basahin ng maraming tao e yung manuscripts dahil fragile materials ang mga ito at madaling masira so logically, yung pinababasa ng dios e yung writing ding yon pero transmitted in a better reading materials, obviously a reproduction. Ibig sabihin ireproduce ito sa maraming aklat, para mabasa ng maraming bansa. 

Dahil ang pinababasa sa maraming bansa e yung mga maraming books as reproduction of the manuscripts, ibig sabihin e reliable ang mga ito kahit hinde ikumpara sa mga manuscripts. Bakit? Dahil ito ang pinababasa. Ipababasa ba yon kung hinde reliable?  So reliable yon di ba?

Ang problema me mga errors tulad sa KJV. Walang sinabi ang dios na standard bible kaya hinde namin alam ang tunay na bible pero for sure yung manuscripts e kasama dito ang correct bible pero alin ang tamang reproduction ng correct bible? Walang nakakaalam pero wala sa mga greek/hebrew bible ngayon ang tunay na correct bible. Ang itinuturo ng holy spirit e yung lahat ng reproduction ng manuscripts, meron sa bawat isa ang correct texts. Iyon yong mga writing ng dios na nagkalat sa iba ibang bible. Guided kami ng holy spirit to sort out from different bible yung correct text. Kaya para saan pa ang manuscripts?

Meron na tayong reproduction ng manuscripts na implied ng dios as reliable so reliable ang reproduction ng Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. Dahil hinde nareveal kung alin ang correct reproduction ng Greek/Hebrew bible, Me holy spirit to guide us alin sa mga greek/hebrew texts sa iba ibang bible ang tama at alin ang mali so aanhin pa ang mga manuscripts kung me guidance ng holy spirit para malaman ang correct text from the reproduction of the manuscripts?

Not necessarily na di ba?

Regarding kung guided ang mga translators na me errors. Masasabi Kong hinde pero me Greek/Hebrew manuscripts na correct and complete texts kaso maaaring hinde nareproduce completely thus the need for the holy spirit to guide us in sorting out the correct texts from different bible to make the complete texts. That is by the guidance of the holy spirit!

Me holy spirit na at reliable reproduction of the manuscripts so aanhin pa namin ang manuscripts?

By far, let’s give nhordz the last words:

Nhordz G Diamal

So far nag kwento nlng si Dennis Butic hindi nya maprove sa atin na ang bible nya ay salita ng Dios,dahil ba sinabi sa isaiah 34:16 na isinulat ay ito na ung bible mo?

Weak argument, unless napatunayan mong bible mo ay hindi corrupted,

Conclusion: Corrupted ba yung copies of the manuscripts (the correct texts) na pinababasa ng dios na kung saan nagkalat randomly sa iba ibang bible? Pinababasa so reliable ito. Kailangan pa ba ang manuscripts kung me reliable reproduction na pinababasa ang dios? Kailangan pa ba ang mga manuscripts kung ituro ng holy spirit ang tama at correct text na nagkalat sa iba ibang bible? Aanhin pa ba ang manuscripts kung reliable ayon sa dios yung reproduction ng mga manuscripts at merong holy spirit na magtuturo ng tamang mga biblical texts na nagkalat randomly sa iba ibang bible?

ADDENDUM:

Yun palang g.of Barnabas na ginagamit ng mga Muslim e 1500 years old so sinulat ito 517 AD bago lumitaw si Muhammad so paano nito nahulaan si Muhammad?

Sabi sa DEUT 13:1-5 nagbibigay ang dios sa mga false dreamers of dreams ng mga signs or prophecy na magkatotoo in the future. Maaaring me binigay ang dios na prophecy about kay muhammad sa g.of barnabbas kaso maaaring nacorrupt ito kaya hinde lumabas ang tunay na mensahe. Baka ang tunay na mensahe ay si muhammad ay false messiah at hinde true messiah.

Read more…

A CHALLENGE TO MIKE WEAVER REGARDING LONDON HAMMER

If London hammer has an archaeological bearing in terms of consensus then it would be a dissoluble agent or refutation to the infamously acclaimed evolution. Here is the issue:

As you can see, the London hammer if its concept as a pre-flood artifact is true dated to be 400million years old negates the evolution concept of Human ancestors to have lived from 8-6 million years ago. The london hammer implies a human civilization predating its so-called and assumed human ancestors thus nullifying any thread of evolution reality. The problem is, the london hammer seem to be an archaelogical dispute as some reported:

The London Hammer is well known to those who follow the debates and discussions around OOParts. You may recall that I blogged about OOParts last year. In that piece, I mentioned a good site to explore for bad archeology claims, named, of course, Bad Archaeology. They had a short write up on the London Hammer saying:

One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek’s geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a ‘pre-Noachian’ artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.

Carl Baugh is the current owner of the London Hammer. He is the director of the Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. The museum features the London Hammer (London Artifact, as they call it) as one of their displays of evidence for creation.

A good scientific discussion of the London Hammer comes from Glen Kuban on his Paluxy site. Give the piece a read, he does a good job breaking the claims down. He concludes:

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer’s artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

I couldn’t have said it better. Another interesting read on this artifact comes from J. R. Cole from the National Center for Science Education. He writes:

The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble.

The confounding factor in all this, of course, is that Baugh will not release the artifact for independent testing. He has had it tested, it is claimed, but not in a transparent way.

The best conclusion I can draw from this is that the artifact probably isn’t an out of place artifact.

Be well.

About Mike Weaver

Husband, father, skeptic, technologist, motorcyclist, hunter, outdoors-man, and evil genius. I am formally trained in computer science, physics, mathematics, and emergency medicine (paramedic, former).

View all posts by Mike Weaver 

Mike Weaver, apparently an intellectual in his field, has injected a doubt to the archaeological dating of the London hammer to have it pre-supposed as discreetly done and not done in a formal transparent way. I’m a poor researcher wanting clarity on this matter as too, I’m biblically inclined believer but wanting sufficient proof for my belief. I’m obviously anti-evolution in that aspect of human evolution as proposed by atheists thus expectedly, i have high hopes for the london hammer as a real piece of evidence. But having doubts, i want to challenge a verifiable response from Mike Weaver who sowed the doubt how his inadequate words “not in a transparent way” been a valid reality.
Mike, would you answer please? In addition, is there no consensus from the archaeological field regarding london hammer as originally proposed?

Lastly, Regarding the artistic style of the hammer thought of as modern, it was only thought of as modern, it was not proven modern. Why, cannot ancient people create crafts resembling modern creation? Its called coincidence. The ordovician rock that encapsulates the hammer is not actually ordovician as J.R. Cole expressed but minerals from the ordovician strata that dissolved and hardened around it. Could that not happened during the Ordovician timeline? The mere fact that Glen Kuban necessitates burden of proof from the proponents is that, there was not yet any conclusive factor that could harness certainty. Thus my challenge is firm, the claimed archaeological team that dated the hammer, was the dating formally acknowledged or not?

Sincerely,

Denn

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL

Some religious groups condemn homosexuality. They consider it a god-condemned status wherein the need for homosexuals to reform to be straight men and female is necessary. Though establishing the true nature of homosexuality is yet scientifically vague in the past yet there are studies now leaning in favor of homosexuality as rather natural than not. Here is a study:

Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology—and not environment—is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits—most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala—an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic–Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. “It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.”

Previous studies have examined brain differences between gay and straight people on the basis of their responses to various tasks, such as rating the attractiveness of other people. The problem was that there was no way to determine whether their responses were colored by learned social cues.

To get around this, Savic-Berglund focused on the structure and function of brain regions that develop during fetal development or early infancy—without using any cognitive tasks or rating systems.

The researchers used MRIs to determine the volume and shapes of the brains of 90 volunteers—25 straight and 20 gay members of each sex. They found that the straight men and gay women had asymmetrical brains; that is, the cerebrum (the largest part of the brain, which is responsible for thought, sensory processing, movement and planning) was larger on the right hemisphere of the brain than on the left. In contrast, they found that women and gay men had symmetrical cerebrums.

The team next used PET (positron emission tomography) scans to measure the blood flow to the amygdala, that part of the brain controlling emotion, fear and aggression. The images showed how the amygdala connects to other parts of the brain, giving them clues as to how this might influence behavior. They scanned subjects’ brains when they at rest and did not show them photos or introduce other behavior that might have been learned.

They found that in gay men and women, the blood flowed to areas involved in fear and anxiety, whereas in straight men and lesbians it tended to flow to pockets linked to aggression. 

Robert Epstein, emeritus director of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, Mass., agrees that the study offers compelling evidence that sexual orientation is a biologically fixed characteristic. But he cautions that these findings may vary in different people whose sexual orientation is not that clear-cut, which his own research shows includes a majority of the population.”

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/

Current evidence indicates that sexual differentiation of the human brain occurs during fetal and neonatal development and programs our gender identity—our feeling of being male or female and our sexual orientation as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. This sexual differentiation process is accompanied by many structural and functional brain differences among these groups (1). In previous studies (23), the Savic laboratory detected a sex-differentiated activation of the anterior hypothalamus in heterosexual men (HeM) and heterosexual women (HeW) and a sex-atypical, almost reversed, pattern of activation in homosexual men (HoM) and homosexual women (HoW). The hypothalamus (Fig. 1) is a small brain area located under the anterior commissure that is involved in many different functions, including reproduction. These observations raised several questions, one of which was whether the sexual dimorphisms described could be sex-atypical in homosexual subjects even with respect to factors not directly associated with reproduction. In a recent issue of PNAS, Savic and Lindström (4) reported that hemispheric ratios, as well as patterns of amygdala connectivity, were sex-atypical in homosexual individuals, with HoM exhibiting more female patterns than HeM and HoW showing more male-like features than HeW. Whether the observed sex-atypical characteristics are the result of processes that occur during the fetal or neonatal periods, as is the case with gender identity and sexual orientation, is an open question. The excellent imaging research of Ivanka Savic’s group in past years has provided strong evidence for structural and functional brain differences related to gender and sexual orientation. The study of these differences has emerged from an era of prejudice and fear such as I experienced 20 years ago (5).In 1990, we described the first brain difference related to sexual orientation in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN)—the brain’s “clock”—which in HoM is twice the size that it is in HeM (6). We later induced a similar brain difference in rats by pharmacologically disturbing the interaction between testosterone and the developing brain, using the aromatase inhibitor ATD in the neonatal period (7). This experiment yielded bisexual adult rats that had a larger-than-normal number of vasopressin neurons and total cells in their SCNs. The difference in the SCN of HoM was, therefore, not caused by a difference in sexual behavior, as was suggested at the time, but by an atypical interaction between sex hormones and the developing brain. In 1991, LeVay (8) reported that HoM, like HeW, have a smaller area in the frontal part of the hypothalamus (the INAH-3) than do HeM. In 1992, Allen and Gorski (9) found that the anterior commissure (Fig. 1) of HoM is larger than that of HeM. This structure, which is larger in women than in men, connects the left and right temporal cortexes and is thus involved in sex differences related to cognitive abilities and language. This difference may be related to the sex-atypical hemispheric asymmetries in HoM and HoW as seen by Savic and Lindström (4). The first functional scanning paper by Kinnunen et al. (10), which described differences in the hypothalamus in relation to sexual orientation, received little scientific or public attention, although the results may have had clinical relevance. The hypothalamus of HoM, it turned out, was not as responsive to a classic antidepressant (fluoxetine) as that of HeM, which points to a difference in the activity of the serotonergic system. Subsequently, Savic et al. (2) studied the effect of scent—in particular, a pheromone derived from progesterone and excreted in perspiration in concentrations 10 times higher in men than in women. Although pheromones influence sexual behavior and stimulate activation in the hypothalamus of HeW and HoM in the same way, this pheromone did not elicit a response in the hypothalamus of HeM. Pheromones thus may play a part in our behavior related to sexual orientation. A follow-up study (3) showed that HoW reacted in a sex-atypical, almost reciprocal, way to pheromones as compared with HeW, again indicating that some hypothalamic circuits function in relation to sexual orientation. Kranz and Ishai (11) expanded this observation to cortical areas. Functional MRI was used to measure activity changes in the brain when pictures of men and women were shown to subjects. Viewing a female face produced a strong reaction in the thalamus and medial prefrontal cortex of HeM and HoW, whereas in HoM and HeW these structures reacted more strongly to the face of a man.

Savic’s previous studies raised the question of whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain that are unlikely to be directly involved in reproduction may differ between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. The article by Savic and Lindström (4) provides the answer. The authors measured hemispheric asymmetry with MRI volumetry and functional connectivity of the amygdala with PET scans of cerebral blood flow. In HeM and HoW, volumetric measurements showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas the volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. Moreover, homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala. In HoW and HeM, on the other hand, they were more widespread from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate; in HeM and HoW, they were displayed with the caudate, putamen, and prefrontal cortex. Savic and Lindström describe sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects that cannot be primarily linked to reproduction and suggest a link between sexual orientation and neurobiological entities. Further research is needed on the putative influence of testosterone on the same parameters (e.g., in individuals with complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome). Neurobiological research related to sexual orientation in humans is only just gathering momentum, but the evidence already shows that humans have a vast array of brain differences, not only in relation to gender, but also in relation to sexual orientation.”

Source: http://m.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full

As you can see through this related articles concerning the study on sexual orientation, the study have compelling reasons to say, homosexuality has by itself a biological reason. Its reflected by the conclusion made by two biologists:

This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. “It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.” 

Robert Epstein, emeritus director of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, Mass., agrees that the study offers compelling evidence that sexual orientation is a biologically fixed characteristic.

Science attests to the biological nature of homosexuality. Biblically, nothing in it suggests the condemnation of homosexuals for merely being homosexuals. What God condemns are catamites or homosexuals doing homosexual affairs with the same sex as it say:

1 Cor 6:9-11

[9]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor MALAKOS (CATAMITE) nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[11]And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


God cannot condemn something natural as homosexuality as he approves of nature or something natural as our teacher as it say:

 

1 Corinthians 11:14

[14]
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

CONCLUSION: GOD NEVER CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALS FOR BEING HOMOSEXUALS. HE CONDEMNS CATAMITES. IT IS BEC HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL AND BEING NATURAL IS A GOD APPROVED TEACHER–THUS AN APPROVED (NOT CONDEMNED) CONDITION!


NO PROOF THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD!

I heard Bro Eli said, the holy spirit is God. For me, I didn’t yet attain that level of understanding to say the holy spirit is God. I believe there is insufficient fact to confirm the holy spirit is god. Let me show you. Firstly, let me expound that the holy spirit is a person, a being that has a nature, will, mind and emotion.

Someone said:

“Biblical Proof That the Holy Spirit Is a Person

A real person has the attributes of personality, which include mind, will, and emotions. Does the Holy Spirit have a will? He distributes spiritual gifts to Christians “as He wills.”2 Does the Holy Spirit have a mind? He “searches . . . the deep things of God” and knows them.3 Does the Holy Spirit have emotions? We are told to “grieve not the Holy Spirit.”4 If the Holy Spirit can be grieved, then He has emotions. Because the Holy Spirit has a mind, a will, and emotions, we know that He is a Person.5

A real person also has the capacity to have relationships with others. That’s the primary reason we have mind, will, and emotions. According to Philippians 2:1, the Spirit is able to have fellowship with us.6 According to 2 Corinthians 13:14, the Holy Spirit can have communion with us.7 One who is able to commune and to have fellowship is capable of personal relationships. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a person.”

Indeed, the holy spirit is a person. Nothing in the bible introduced him as a created being. Nothing likewise confirm or deny that he is eternal. Therefore nothing is confirmatory regarding his existence in terms of origin. We don’t therefore know if he was created or not. The sure thing is, he was not once a part of God in nature as Jesus was the only person that came out from God–the only begotten son. Therefore, the holy spirit never came out from God. But is he God?

Someone said:

“The Holy Spirit Is God

The Holy Spirit is the all-knowing, all-seeing, everywhere-present God. Acts 5:3–4 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is God. Remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira? Before Ananias was struck dead, Peter told him, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men; but to God.” From this event we can see that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God; therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

There is more Scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit is God. We see from the Bible that:

  • The words of God are the words the Holy Spirit inspired.11
  • We are the temple of God because the Spirit indwells us.12
  • The one born of the Spirit is said to be born of God.13

The Holy Spirit is God Himself, the third Person of the divine Trinity. Why is it so important to believe in the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit? It is crucial because you cannot give Him the honor and respect that He deserves if you don’t consider Him a divine Person. In fact, I find it doubtful that someone can be saved while he denies the personhood and deity of the One who tries to draw him to salvation.14

As you can see, nothing in these logical analysis confirmed that the holy spirit is God. It said:

  •  “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men; but to God. 
  • We are the temple of God because the Spirit indwells us.12

As you can see, the holy spirit represents God as saying, we are the temple of God through the holy spirit indwelling in us. Being the representative of God, the credit of anything affixed to him is for God almighty so when it say, lying to the holy spirit is lying to God, doesn’t make the holy spirit God but only as his representative thus lying to his representative is tantamount to lying to god almighty so when it say, lying to the holy spirit is lying to God, God there is not the holy spirit but God almighty being represented by the holy spirit therefore nothing is confirmatory to say, holy spirit is God. Likewise it said:

  • The one born of the Spirit is said to be born of God.13

That is in the same essence of the holy spirit as representative of God. Born of the spirit is born of God almighty. Nothing is confirmed in that essence the article implied. 

Now, let me direct you to another apparently proof that the holy spirit is God. Let’s read:

Genesis 1:26-27

[26]And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

As you can see, God has co-creators in creating man he claimed as someone in the same likeness and image with him. Jesus and the holy spirit are his co-creator but verse 27 implies that the credit of creation is for God almighty. The holy spirit is a co-creator as expressed:

Job 33:4

[4]The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Therefore, being a co-creator therefore he is the one said by God as:

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Being his image and likeness, is he in the same nature and shape as Jesus and God are or only the same image and likeness in terms of righteousness/holiness only as image of god in biblical terms is holiness/righteousness? Nothing is again confirmed or denied regarding holy spirit as God thus it is inconclusive. Having these, the holy spirit could be God or not. The only problem is, there is no sufficient fact to prove he is indeed God.

What can you say, Bro Eli?

TB MEDICATION BLUNDER A MALPRACTICE?

Dear Medical personalities,

I am Dennis Butic and with all sincerity, I don’t have any issue regarding any specific Medical practice/doctor but only with regards to my initial observation, fractional in terms of integral medical truth if so that there is a bigger reality than my observation. I had been a TB patient in the past. I underwent 6 month medication. Medicine intake was basically not a problem though the meds I took, though I cannot remember how it tasted, was probably has bitter under taste, but being adult, it posed no obstacle with the willing mind for recuperation. But that is, on my case, an adult but how about for a 4year old kid diagnosed with TB with regards to meds bitter taste?

Let me give some details. My pamangkin has recurring cough. Diagnosed with TB through blood examination. We didnt have a 2nd opinion from another doctor which my parents neglected. We should have as examination have discrepancies between different Medical apparatus as I experienced with x-ray.  Nevertheless, they prescribed 4 kinds of medicine. 2 syrup, 5ml each one hour before meal and one syrup and one tablet (to be pulverized and mixed with water) after meal. Initially, the intake went smoothly for 4days but afterwards, even with tactical coaxing, he only drank the 3syrup but resisted and consistently spit out the tablet due to its bitter taste, unpalatable for a kid his age. Without the mentality of recuperation, endurance and a willing mind, med intake is futile.

Here are the medicine:

  • One hour before meal are: ISONIAZID and RIFAMPICIN
  • After meal are: PYRAZINAMIDE and ETHAMBUTOL (bitter tablet)

Here is the prescription sheet:


As I said, I have no issue with the doctor. I posted the prescription for credibility. And as I said, this is just a fractional observation. If there is no other way to cure an infant’s TB, (which I don’t know if there are, I should have asked a doctor but couldn’t) whose fault is it if my pamangkin gets worse bec of med intake failure? The chemist who cannot make child-friendly tablets, the doctor who have no alternative child-friendly tablets/meds for prescription, or the medical world unsophisticated standard quality?

If there are alternative for cure such as a child-friendly replacement drug, I would say, the doctor lacks empathy and she was careless or she is an ignorant doctor. Nevertheless, if she knew there was an alternative child-friendly drug yet she chooses a hostile to the palate drug, which consequently bec of intake failure would make the condition worse, I would say, it is a medical malpractice or if not, then I’m an idiot!

The question is, Are there no alternative for the bitter pill?

The second question is, are the chemist idiots to make bitter pills for kids which are wasted bec of improbable intake?

Lastly, I wanted to reiterate, this article is due to fractional observation!

Sincerely Yours,

Denn