Many people regarded Muhammad as a pedophile or sexual pervert yet that is an ignorant analysis bec as provisional, there is no certain Islamic text that supports this idea. Phedophilia or sexual perversion is a psychological disorder and to say, Muhammad is a pedophile is unfair as there is no sufficient fact supporting it. Marrying children and having sexual relationship with them must not be seen as pedophilia provided it is cultural or in the case of Muhammad is a sanction from an assumed deity, Allah. So we must be careful in accusing anyone of pedophilia. Muhammad sexual affair to nine-year old Aisha must not be concluded as pedophilia but as submission to Allah. In this case, it was faith and not sexual perversion. Indeed, Muhammad sexually consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was nine-years old as it say:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). [2]

Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old. [3]

Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years. [4]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. [5]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. [6]

Six-year old Aisha was already at the onset of adulthood as Islamic sources claimed bec the only way two persons are married is when they are adults as a muslim apologist say:

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur’an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.

So Aisha was an adult at six years old. See how perverted is the mentality of those proponents of childhood marriages? Though Aisha may be an adult at nine bec she probably and as believed had premature menstruation ordaining her to be at puberty stage yet that is where the problem arises as United Nations released a statement condemning early pregnancies due to health hazard in places like Middle east as it say:

An excerpt

In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer “status” on a woman.

An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly. [23]

There is a medical hazard to early pregnancies. Though Aisha was never pregnant but that imposed other Muslims to have sexual relationships with nine-year olds endangering their health due to early pregnancies. Muhammad is the pattern of conduct for Muslims necessitating premature sexual relationships with nine-year olds resultantly, early pregnancies and now has Middle east plagued by this islamic culture whereas United Nations voçally condemned the practice. 

The thing is, scientifically, when is the right age to have sex?

Obviously, bec of health hazard due to early pregnancies, it is advisable to avoid sex at an early age such as nine-years old. Let me quote again:

An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly. [23]

The presented health hazard by definition as follows:

Vesicovaginal fistula, or VVF, is an abnormal fistulous tract extending between the bladder (or vesico) and the vagina that allows the continuous involuntary discharge of urine into the vaginal vault.

In addition to the medical sequela from these fistulas, they often have a profound effect on the patient’s emotional well-being.


It is often caused by childbirth (in which case it is known as an obstetric fistula), when a prolonged labor presses the unborn child tightly against the pelvis, cutting off blood flow to the vesicovaginal wall. The affected tissue may necrotize (die), leaving a hole.

Lastly, for morality’s sake, is Muhammad’s sexual affair with Aisha a moral thing to do? Let me quote David Wood:

There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.

If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.

I agree. The mental picture of a moral man, an example of a perfect man, appraised to be at its highest value, virtuous and pious–then suddenly, we see him to be lustfully consuming his appetite on a nine-year old, and endangering her for a possible early pregnancy, should that mental picture not shatters our own personal view of what is indeed moral?




To set the record straight, no religious leader of the true church is infallible unless they are perfected men. Proof of perfection is not yet evident even as well to the apostles who preached the law of Moses yet it was already a dead law–a sign of imperfection–as it say:

Acts 21:17-24

[17]And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

[18]And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

[19]And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

[20]And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

[21]And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

[22]What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

[23]Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

[24]Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

As a matter of fact, during these times, the law was already dead as it say:

Luke 16:16


As you can see, apostles did err to have preached the law of moses when it was already a dead law how much so Bro eli soriano when he said as i paraphrase: December in Bethlehem was full of snow, so how come Caesar would have discretion to implement a census during these uncomfortable times? Bro eli could be wrong but unless you refutes his sources which by now are not exposed, i cannot certainly say, he is wrong but only by assuming a possibility that he could be wrong seeing how internet is full of info regarding bethlehem’s winter as absent of snow, but who knows what evidence he holds?

We have not attained yet to that level of perfection thus expect us to have errors as we are yet on the process of being perfected.

Matthew 5:48

[48]Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 

Nevertheless, it was catholics themselves that confirmed that the date of the lord’s birth is unknown. By being that, to have christmas as tradition is a lie.And having the foundational significance of a lie in a religion is deception. Refer to the various info below: says:

Pope Benedict Disputes Jesus’ Date of Birth

With the release of his new book, Pope Benedict XVI asks how much we really know about the birth of Christ

Pope Benedict XVI holds a copy of his book

REUTERS / Osservatore Romano

Pope Benedict XVI holds a copy of his book “Jesus’ Childhood” as he meets RCS publisher Paolo Mieli and Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, in the Vatican on Nov. 20, 2012

Pope Benedict XVI has revealed in the third installment of his trilogy, dedicated to the life of Christ, that Jesus may have been born earlier than previously thought. The calendar we use today, which commences with the birth of Christ and was created by a Dionysius Exiguus, a 6th century monk, may be mistaken. According to the Telegraphthe Pope explains in his book that Exiguus, who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.” The suggestion that Jesus wasn’t actually born on Dec. 25 has been tirelessly debated by theologians, historians and spiritual leaders, but what makes this case different is that now the leader of the Catholic Church is the one asking the questions.

Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, was published on Tuesday. Like the previous two installments, it’s predicted to be a best seller, and a million copies of the book have already been printed. It is expected that the book will be translated into another 20 languages for publication in 72 countries. The Infancy Narratives follows the life of Jesus from conception to his presentation in the temple at the age of 12. The Pope describes this third book as a “small antechamber” to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, reports the Vatican Press Office.



Catholic encyclopedia says:

Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the ChurchIrenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feastsOrigen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the “birthdays” of the gods.


The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians “over curiously” assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ’s birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement’s evidence may be mentioned the “De paschæ computus”, written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ’s birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ’s birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January). At any rate this double commemoration became popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one manifestation of Christ’s glory, and was added to the greater manifestations celebrated on 6 January; partly because at the baptism-manifestation many codices (e.g. Codex Bezæ) wrongly give the Divine words as sou ei ho houios mou ho agapetos, ego semeron gegenneka se (Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee) in lieu of en soi eudokesa (in thee I am well pleased), read in Luke 3:22Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniæ in Nicæan times; Epiphanius (Hær., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5-6 January, a cross-stamped Korê was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, “Today at this hour Korê gave birth to the Eternal”; John Cassian records in his “Collations” (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418-427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the “ancient custom”; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. The December feast therefore reached Egypt between 427 and 433.


Catholic encyclopedia says:


The Gospels

Concerning the date of Christ’s birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory arguments are based. The census would have been impossible in winter: a whole population could not then be put in motion. Again, in winter it must have been; then only field labour was suspended. But Rome was not thus considerate. Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season.


The Catholic Encyclopedia 

Volume 2/Page 607


The feast of the Savior’s birth is called Christmas, the Mass of Christ. It is celebrated on December 25 and is one of the main feasts of the liturgical year. See Church Year. 

The actual date of the Lord’s birth is unknown, and its commemoration was generally included in the Feast of the Manifestations(Epiphany, January 6)during the first three centuries of the Christian era. See Epiphany. 

History. In about the year 330. However,the Church in Rome definitely assigned December 25 for the celebration, in order to honor Christ, the light of the World and the true Sun of Justice. This was the day which had been dedicated in pagan Rome to the feast of the sun god and had been called Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.


Jesus is life. Life in the sense that he is the word–the truth.

John 14:6

[6]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 6:63

[63]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 11:25-26
[25]Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

[26]And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

He is the embodiment of the literal words of God as it say:

Pr 4:20 . My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.

Pr 4:21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.

Pr 4:22 For they [are] life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.

His being the life or the truth causes eternal life for men.

John 6:68

[68]Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Yet his being life or the truth is by itself eternal life.

John 1:4

[4]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 8:12

[12]Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

IN HIM WAS LIFE meaning he being life has in himself that life also. What life is that? The light of men or the light of life. Light implies salvation, therefore it is eternal life. Therefore his being life as the light of men is eternal life. Therefore Jesus is the eternal life, and being eternal life automatically makes him the true god.

1 John 5:20

[20]And we know that the Son of God is come… This is the true God, and eternal life.

1 John 1:2

[2](For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

That life manifested was Jesus as he said: I am the life, and that as the verse say is not the father but someone with him called eternal life and being eternal life then he is the true god as it say: this is the true god and eternal life. Meaning, the eternal life is the true god and that is no other than Jesus Christ.

We are also the light of this world are we the eternal life? We are light by being saviours but we are not the life.

James 5:20

[20]Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Jesus, is the sole title holder, of that embodiment of the truth called life. Thus being in that position, he is the true god. Therefore when it say:

John 17:3

[3]And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It didn’t say, God is the only true god of heaven and earth bec what if it meant as: the only true god remaining in heaven bec the other true god is on earth? How come? Bec jesus too is the true god.

And when it say:

1 Corinthians 8:6

[6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Does it mean, there is a single god in the whole universe? Or it simply means, among the gods there is one god of whom are all things called the father? How come? Bec jesus is also the true god. Comparatively speaking, when saying: there is but one man, the son of manalo, of whom are the guns in 36TS, Does it mean there is one man in the world?

Obviously, proponents of the single god concept are refuted by this reality: Jesus is the life therefore he is god. Much so as supported by John1:1 the word was god. They say, that is a metaphor like time is gold yet that is weak as nothing to that effect has any contextual back up.


A book author has this to say in his website:

Texe Marrs releases his newest bombshell: DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline, now available through Power of Prophecy.

This fact—that modern DNA science proves the Word of God correct—is the subject of my startling new book, DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline. This is a book you must have. It proves absolutely that the people who identify themselves today as “Jews” are not Jews—they are the Synagogue of Satan, just as the Bible says!

DNA Research Brings the Truth

The undeniable evidence of this has become clear with the advent of DNA research. In 2001, Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team at Tel Aviv University released their study which found that the “Jews” were mainly Khazars, from Khazaria, a Caucasus country which is now called Kazakhstan, Georgia, and other names. The Khazarians converted from pagan religions to talmudic Judaism after the 8th century, but of course, racially they remain Khazars.

The Khazars were and are a genome that is mainly Turkish and Mongolian blood.

Thus today, when you see a “Jew,” what you are actually encountering is a Khazar who practices Judaism. The Khazar has no Israelite blood. His ancestors are not the Israelites of the Bible. They did not worship the God, Jehovah, but instead literally were a phallic cult. They worshipped Satan by means of the male penis idol. The Khazars were never in the land of Israel. They are not the seed of Abraham. They have no promise from God. Now we know this as absolute scientific fact.

Dr. Eran Elhaik

Dr. Eran Elhaik

In late 2012, yet another Israeli-born scientist, Dr. Eran Elhaik, of the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Science, Johns Hopkins Medical University, published his research in The Journal of Biology and Evolution. Considered by geneticists worldwide as the “definitive study” and peer-approved, this authoritative research confirmed Dr. Oppenheim’s earlier findings and went even further.

“There are no blood or family connections among the Jews,” reported Dr. Elhaik. “The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. Their genome is largely Khazar.”

“Whatever Israelite blood the Khazar Jews have,” added Dr. Elhaik, “is miniscule.”

Like Dr. Oppenheim, Elhaik’s research connected today’s Jews to the Turkic clans of Khazaria, in the Russian Caucasus.

The facts are: Israel and America are populated by people saying they are Jews who are not Jews! They are Khazarian. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims, “God gave this land to our Israelite forefathers,” he is not telling the truth. When today’s Khazar Jews say they possess the land of Israel as a divine right, they are sadly mistaken.

Indeed, Elhaik and Oppenheim found that the Palestinian people may have more Israelite blood coursing through their veins than do the people who say they are Jews! A DNA test would no doubt confirm this eye-popping fact.

So as you can see, proponents of the khazar myth, has used genetics to discredit Zionists as real Jews. They say, a research study, peer approved and authoritative so as claimed by the book author is proof enough to their khazar concept about Zionists. Yet is it indeed true?

First of all if its true, then what shall we say then of the biblical prophecies about Jews returning to Israel and its building of a kingdom? Should we say, there would be fulfillment in the future and the Zionists and its government now is a false fulfillment?

Let’s consult the bible:

Ezekiel 37:21-22

[21]And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

[22]And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

So were not the zionists and its government the fulfillment of this prophecy or are we yet to wait for the allegedly real jews to fulfill it? But who are these real jews scattered abroad? When they return to reclaim Israel, would its inhabitants be dispersed for them or would they reclaim it without force?

Yet was it indeed true that these Zionists are not the real fulfillment?

Let’s see how they defended Zionists likewise with genetics but before that let’s ask, would peer-reviewed paper indeed guarantee truth? The answer is, not necessarily for many scientists as i quote:

Peer review’s history is of particular interest now because there is an increasing sense in the scientific community that all is not well with the peer review process. In recent years, high-profile papers have passed peer review only to be heavily criticized after publication (such as the 2011 “arsenic DNA” paper in Science that claimed a particular bacterium could incorporate arsenic into its DNA—a finding most biologists have since rejected). Others have been retracted amid allegations of fraud (consider the now-infamous 1998 Lancet paper claiming a link between vaccines and autism). Many scientists worry that requiring approval from colleagues makes it less likely that new or controversial ideas will be publishedNature’s former editor John Maddox was fond of saying that the groundbreaking 1953 DNA paper would never have made it past modern peer review because it was too speculative. In 2011, Great Britain’s House of Commons commissioned a report on the state of peer review. The report concluded that while peer review “is crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research,” many scientists believe the system stifles innovation and that “there is little solid evidence on its efficacy.”

If peer review is indeed broken, as some observers have claimed, an important part of fixing it may be adjusting our expectations of it. It seems a bit ambitious to ask any bureaucratic process to distinguish scientific successes from scientific mistakes with total accuracy. Scientific findings will always be questioned after publication and some will ultimately be rejected, including ones by excellent scientists. Although there are good reasons to solicit expert feedback on scientific articles before publication, the conversation about whether something is “real science” does not end when an article reaches print.

Source: Click here!

Therefore, its not necessarily, that the peer-approved paper about zionists as khazars is true. Alexander Beider, another book author and linguist, refutes this particular peer-reviewed paper as he said:

Finally, we come to genetics. One does not have to be a professional geneticist to see the inadequacy of the methodologies used by Eran Elhaik, the champion of the “Khazarian theory” in that domain. In his paper of 2013, he pretends to show that modern Ashkenazic Jews are genetically closer to Khazars than to biblical Hebrews. The last mention of Khazars is almost one thousand years old, while biblical times are also far from us. For these reasons, Elhaik needed modern substitutes, so he substituted Armenians and Georgians for Khazars (because all of them are related in some way to Caucasus); and he substituted Israeli Palestinians for biblical Hebrews. In his paper of 2016, he analyses the links between various population groups by introducing another “bold” idea, that of finding a sort of “geographic average” point for various genetic features. Using it, he links the Ashkenazic Jews to the southern part of the Black sea, not far from the Turkish border but still in places inhabited by fish only.Read more:

Lets see the other side of the spectrum, the genetics that proves zionists are real jews, then compare. From another source it say:

A variety of DNA studies over an extended period of time support the fact that Ashkenazic Jews originated in the Middle East (also called the Near East). Some of these studies include the following:

  • Hammer, et al. conclude that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population (source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2000). This suggests that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East;

  • The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with “relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim,” according to Hammer et. al. (source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2000);

  • Two studies by Nebel et al. in 2001 and 2005, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe — defined in the using Eastern European, German, and French Rhine Valley populations (source: European Journal of Human Genetics);

  • In 2004, Behar et al compared data from Ashkenazi groups in ten different European areas (France, Germany, the Netherlands; Austria-Hungary, Byelorussia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine ) with data from non-Jewish groups in seven different countries (France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Russia). They found that nine of the Jewish groups were similar, with low rates of admixture with non-Jewish groups, but that these Ashkenazi groups were closely related to non-Ashkenazi Jews and to some non-Jewish Near Eastern groups (Human Genetics, 2004);

  • A 2006 study by Behar et al. based on high-resolution analysis of haplogroup K (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or “founder lineages”, that were likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool originating in the Middle East in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. Behar et al. suggest that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from ~150 women, most of those likely of Middle Eastern origin. (source: American Journal of Human Genetics, 2006);

  • Medical studies of the DNA of various diaspora Jewish populations — from Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi — have shown them to all be close Middle Eastern kin (source: American Journal of Human Genetics, 2010); and

  • Ashkenazi Levites paternally descend from an Iranian people, not from Khazars or Slavs, according to genetic evidence revealed in a study by Siiri Rootsi et al. (Nature Communications, 2013).

  • Since no other paternal or maternal haplogroup among Ashkenazim comes from a Central Asian Turkic source either, there is a total absence of evidence for Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews. Kevin Brook, who has been researching the possibility of Khazar ancestry for 20 years among Ashkenazim and wrote a book entitled “The Jews of Khazaria”, concludes: “Surprisingly, there is evidence for small amounts of southern Chinese, Berber, and Slavic ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews, but not for Turkic Khazar ancestry.”

    Lastly, with due respect to peer-reviewed paper as authoritative, it doesnt diminish the fact that peer-reviewed paper has no guarantee of infallibility. In fact, it has failure and comparing two contrasting genetic studies, one must consider reality, that one of them could either be true or false. Whichever is true, we must not neglect the prophecy, that israelites would be returning to israel and builds a government of its own. Coincidentally, a people claiming to be jews did just that, the zionists. If its a matter of consideration, would they indeed be the ones confirming the prophecies as much so that a genetic study comes to their support?

    Or are we still waiting for real Jews, scattered around the world to fulfill yet the said prophecy?

    The question is, who are they, if so that the Zionists are fake? Or are we not looking at a failed peer reviewed science journal?


    Muslims are so persistent in their derogatory move in attacking Christianity so to exalt the integrity of Islam. They say, nothing in the bible speaks of Jesus Christ under the condition of death. Nothing prophesied so they say, yet for us, clearly, Dan 9 established the reality that the messiah was killed. Whoever this messiah is, Jesus or any other prophets, is in the process of debates. 

    The purpose of this blog is to show that that Messiah killed is Jesus. Let’s begin.

    Daniel states,

    Daniel 9:24-27

    [24]Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

    [25]Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

    [26]And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    [27]And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    To sum it up, 70weeks is the timetable for the succeeding prophecy in Dan 9:24-27 to happen as it say: 70weeks are determined to seal up the prophecy, meaning, there would be 70weeks wherein the succeeding prophecy would materialized. Within this 70week timeframe is the 69 weeks wherein the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem would happen, included too is the 62th week after which the messiah is cut off or killed as it say: after threescore and two weeks shall messiah be cut off. At the last week of the 70week timeframe, is the time of war and desolation as it say: and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    To which historical event all of these took place? To add for more clarity, Jesus himself admitted that they were waiting for that coming of the last week of the 70week timeframe: the war and desolation as it say:

    Matthew 24:15-20

    [15]When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 

    [16]Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 

    [17]Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 

    [18]Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 

    [19]And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 

    [20]But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 

    Meaning, Jesus’ time was inclusive of the 70week timeframe. We would utilize that to resolve the issue at hand, as reference point to know where in the 70week timeframe has happened the last week event of the time frame: the war and desolation. So I’ll have to ask, when was a war and desolation happened after Jesus’ time and which Messiah was existing during these times?

    If we are to decipher when was the war and desolation spoken of to have happened at the last week, we could decipher the nearest time a Messiah was cut off or killed?

    So when was there a war and desolation after Jesus’ time?

    There was none except after the 70AD war wherein Gen Titus besieged Jerusalem that initiated the desolation. Historian Josephus confirmed as it say:

    Now, that we have established the last week event, we could trace back in history which event has a Messiah killed?

    The closest event was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Was he the one spoken of in the prophecy as:And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself meaning, he was killed not for himself but for the people as it say:

    Matthew 26:28

    [28]For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

    Clearly, being the only Messiah killed nearest the last week timeframe of war and desolation, implies the only event that foster to the concept, that Dan 9 speaks of Jesus as the killed Messiah. How come? Bec there was no other mentioned killed messiah close to the last week event.

    That for sure, construe the fact that Jesus was the killed messiah of Dan 9. The problem is how many tried to resolve this issue through calculation. Some say, 70weeks is 490years as by the process of calculation used in the torah that one day equates to one year as it say:

    Numbers 14:34

    [34]After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

    The problem with this calculation is that it never affirmed it as a general equation utilized for all number problem. Taking 490years as equal to 70weeks posed a problem as it would points to 460BC as the initial point of the 69weeks wherein it was commanded to rebuild Jerusalem. Historically, none of it affirms of such command. It was at the time of Cyrus that such command was initially feasible through his command to rebuild the temple. 

    Some say, Cyrus was the killed Messiah of Dan 9 yet this is problematic too as the 490year timeframe cannot be conducive for a timeframe that includes Jesus’ time.

    For me, Daniel knew the calculation by basing it on other books than the bible yet for random thought, there is a hidden way to calculate the 70week timeframe but for the moment, it is hid. What is undenial though is the reality of Dan 9. There was an only messiah killed close to the last week timeframe of war and desolation. There is nothing in history that support this reality except Christ crucifixion.


    Muslims say, Jesus and God has one purpose as it say:

    Further from Muslim-SA:

  John 10:30

    The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30

    “I and my father are one.”

    This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:

    “And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.”

    John 10:23-30

    In divinity? In a holy “Trinity”? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus’ hand, so too shall no one pluck them out of God’s hand.

    If so that they are one in purpose, therefore when God intended Peter to preach to the gentiles, it was also the purpose of Jesus as it say:

    Acts 15:6-9
    [6]And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

    [7]And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

    [8]And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

    [9]And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 

    Therefore, it was by the purpose of God and Jesus to include gentiles in the plan of salvation bec of the fact that they are one in purpose. Therefore, Jesus was not only meant for the lost sheep of Israel bec he purposed likewise with God to have the gospel reach the gentiles, therefore what it means by sent only to the lost sheep of Israel was in essence sent to them before his death but after death his ministry through the apostles includes gentiles so as validated by his purpose that the gospel is for gentiles also.

    Furthermore, God and Jesus are in agreement accdg to another Muslim site, therefore both are in agreement that preaching the gospel is for gentiles also disproving the allegation that Jesus was meant only for the Jews as it say:


    Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen].” Doesn’t this show that they are one in essence?

    This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John’s Jesus meant by the word hen (“one”) becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: “That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]” (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: “I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]” (John 8:29).
    There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.




    Jesus indeed claimed to be the I AM as he said:

    John 8:56-58

    [56]Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

    [57]Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

    [58]Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 

    When the Jews asked him, you are not yet 40years old and you has seen Abraham? Naturally, Jesus response would be pertinent with the question therefore Jesus response would necessarily refers to himself. Note though how his answer was grammatically incorrect: I AM. It should have been I WAS, Before Abraham was, i was to express it on correct grammar but why the rather lopsided answer if he meant it on correct perspective as, before Abraham was, I was? Therefore to have a resolution bent on correct grammar, I AM there dont speak of I WAS but rather on doctrinal implication, should have alluded it to the I AM of the old testament, as rather a semblance with him either as an appelation or persoñ. It dont mean though that Jesus was the I AM that talked to Moses as both are two individual entities as it say:

    John 6:38

    [38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 

    It only means, both God and Jesus carry a similarity in terms of reputation. They are both called I AM.

    “I AM” is the name God gave Himself in Exodus 3:13-14:“Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

    If Jesus ascribed to himself the appellation of God, does it not mean, he is god too?
    Yes as John expressed in John 1:1, the word was god. Note how he was god in the past tense and if we are to consider the following verse it say: in the beginning with God, therefore he was already God before the time of Abraham. In conjunction, when saying I AM as an ascription to himself based on God’s name I AM, it dont only carry with it the name but likewise the characteristic that is God so as intimately clarified by John 1:1. Therefore It implies that Jesus was already God before Abraham was so as clarified how god in the third clause of John 1:1 was used, as noun and adjective and being a noun, therefore God is an entity, a living one.

    A Greek scholar of INC used this grammarian carelessly in favor to the concept that Jesus is God. Joe Ventilacion recklessly refuted himself. He said:

    If the true God is always introduced by the article, what about the word THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1? Does it contain an article? No, it does not have an article before it. It just simply says THEOS, not HO THEOS.

    What is the usage of the term THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1 in the absence of an article? A Greek grammarian will explain to us its function:

    Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, that noun becomes much more like an adjective (Barclay, William, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, The Westminster Press, Kentucky (2001) p. 46).

    Theos or God lacking the definite article THE is more like an adjective than noun, as the grammarian implied, so its still a noun but this time in lesser percentage– more like an adjective.  Still, its a noun. Therefore the God in john 1:1 being a noun is an existing entity called word, therefore it was not just a mere idea so as these deluded INC has been proposing. How could God being a noun be just a mere idea when it was already a noun?

    Definition of noun

    any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see determiner b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept 

    It clarifies, that I AM referring to Jesus was intended to mean as God. Therefore, when it say, before Abraham was, I am, it really meant it to be as before Abraham was, God. Meaning, Jesus was God before Abraham existed as by that notion that God was a noun, implying an existing entity. That for me declares the preexistence of Jesus even before Abraham existed or even before his incarnation, and that, as a person called I AM, a god!
    So is Jesus God?

    Absolutely, bec he was the I AM.


    THE WORD IS GOD is a metaphor to mean the word is powerful like TIME IS GOLD is a metaphor to mean time is valuable. It doesnt mean time is a literal gold or the word is a literal god.


    If that is the case then, is he not God when he has preexistence as a living and talking entity as it say:

    John 6:38

    [38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

     HEB 10:5

    When he cometh to the world, he (the word) saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body thou hast prepared for me.

    Hebrews 13:8

    [8]Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    That one who come to the world came from heaven. He was a talking and living entity already when he come to the world and being the same yesterday, today and forever meaning naturally, he was already a talking living being in heaven. That speaks of the word and not his human component bec his human component changes. His human component was not the same yesterday, today and forever. It was not from heaven whereas the one coming from heaven is talking as it say:When he cometh to the world, he (the word) saith, therefore, it implies that he was a talking entity in heaven as much as he is the same entity talking on earth. It speaks of no other than the word in john 1:1. Being a talking living being in heaven therefore he has preexistence before his incarnation. He also said: i (the word) came down from heaven. You see that the one who came from heaven was talking on earth therefore being the same entity that talks on earth then he must have been a living, talking entity in heaven. Therefore, he was pre-existent.

    Does a preexisting entity living in heaven be not God when John 1:1 implied he is?

    Obviously, he is. Even supported by the fact that Jesus as the verbo or word was a living entity before his incarnation.

    Philippians 2:6-7
    [6]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    [7]But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


    If we look it up in greek, it would be: kenoo heauteau kenoo meaning, it is: emptied himself and abased

    To make things in right perspective, let us consult context. Firstly, it say, jesus in his pre-incarnation state was in the form of god and equal with god. Next event was, he emptied himself and abased himself. Afterwards he incarnated. So as you can see, before becoming man, he emptied himself and abased himself. So obviously, during the emptyiing of himself he was already the verbo or the word. So the question would be, if the verbo or word is mere idea, how could he have possibly emptied himself and abased himself then seeing how he was inexistent still?

    It cannot possibly be, so the only resolution to it is, the verbo or word was not a mere idea but a living entity. Therefore, Jesus was a pre-existent living entity in heaven so is that not god?

    Obviously, he is.