Amrieburhe

MS2

[Mex Asher @Thatnsukkaboy_]

THE ETERNAL SON: A FULL BIBLICAL ANSWER TO THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHALLENGE.

I. THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION: THE MESSIAH WAS ALWAYS MORE THAN HUMAN.

The idea that the Messiah would be divine is not a New Testament development, it is built into the architecture of the Old Testament itself.

The Angel of the LORD (Mal'ak YHWH) establishes the pattern early. This figure speaks as God in the first person, receives worship without rebuke, and is identified by his own witnesses as God, Manoah declares, "We have seen God" (Judges 13:22). Yet he is also sent, remaining distinct from the One who sends him. One figure who is simultaneously God and sent by God. This is the pre-incarnate template.

Isaiah 48:16 is perhaps the most quietly explosive Trinitarian text in the Hebrew Bible. The speaker throughout Isaiah 40–48 has been YHWH himself, then suddenly: "The Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit." The divine speaker claims pre-existence ("from the beginning I have been there"), yet has been sent by another. You cannot send yourself. Here is a figure who is ontologically divine yet personally distinct from Father and Spirit — the Son, speaking centuries before Bethlehem.

Isaiah 9:6 names the promised child El Gibbor, Mighty God. JWs argue this is a lesser title than "Almighty God." Isaiah himself closes that argument. In Isaiah 10:21, the same title — El Gibbor, word for word — is used of YHWH. If it denotes a lesser deity in Isaiah 9, then YHWH himself is only a lesser deity in Isaiah 10. The argument destroys itself. Furthermore, Abi-Ad (Father of Eternity) means this figure possesses eternity and is its source, a title no creature can bear.

Daniel 7:13–14 seals the case. The Son of Man comes with the clouds, in the Old Testament, cloud-riding is YHWH's exclusive domain (Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1). Israel's polemic against Baal was precisely that YHWH alone is the cloud-rider. When this figure wears that imagery, he is wearing the wardrobe of deity. He then receives pelach (פְּלַח) — the Aramaic word Daniel uses throughout for worship given exclusively to God (Daniel 3:12–17). The Son of Man receives the worship Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to give Nebuchadnezzar's idol. Jesus explicitly applied this to himself at his trial (Mark 14:62), and the High Priest tore his garments, not because Jesus claimed to be Messiah, but because he claimed divine enthronement. The High Priest knew his Daniel.

II. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS HIMSELF
The most devastating evidence for Christ's deity is not what others said about him, it is what he said about himself, and how his contemporaries, who shared his religious world completely, reacted.

John 8:58 : "Before Abraham was, I AM." Not "I was." The present tense of eternal self-existence; precisely YHWH's covenant name from Exodus 3:14. The crowd's response: stones. You do not stone someone for claiming seniority to Abraham. You stone them for claiming to be YHWH.

John 10:30 : "I and the Father are one." The Greek ἕν is neuter — one in essence, not one person. The crowd again reaches for stones and explains why: "you, being a man, make yourself God" (v.33). They were not confused. They heard a claim to divine equality and responded accordingly.

John 17:5 : "Glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world existed." Jesus claims pre-creation glory shared with the Father. Isaiah 42:8 states: "My glory I give to no other." Yet Jesus claims it as already his by right.

His Trial (Mark 14:61–64) : Jesus combines Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 into a single claim: Son of Man + right hand of Power + coming on the clouds. That combination equals divine enthronement. If the JW is correct that Jesus never claimed to be God, then he died for a misunderstanding, and the entire passion narrative collapses theologically.

III. THE APOSTOLIC WITNESS : FROM THE WOMB TO THE CROSS
The testimony is unbroken, from before his birth to his final breath:

Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) : Spirit-filled, she calls the embryo in Mary's womb "my Lord" (κύριός μου) — the standard Septuagint rendering of YHWH.

Simeon (Luke 2:30–32) : He declares the infant is the salvation of God, echoing Isaiah 52:10: "all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." He doesn't say "your Saviour" — he says Jesus is the salvation.

Anna (Luke 2:38) : Immediately identifies the child as the fulfilment of Israel's deepest hope — which in the Prophets is always the hope for YHWH himself to return and redeem (Isaiah 52:7–10).

Thomas (John 20:28) : "My Lord and my God!" In Greek, both possessive pronouns are attached — this is not an exclamation of shock but a direct confessional address to Jesus. Jesus accepts it and commends it (v.29). A being who receives worship that belongs only to God, without correction, either is God or is a deceiver. There is no middle option.

Paul (Colossians 2:9): "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." Not a portion. Not a divine quality. The entire πλήρωμα of θεότης — the totality of Godhood — in bodily form. This cannot be reduced without linguistic violence.

The Father himself (Hebrews 1:8): "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." The Father addresses the Son as God. If the JW argument stands — that having a God disqualifies one from being God — then the Father himself is in error when he addresses his own Son.

The Centurion (Mark 15:39): A Roman soldier with no theological agenda looks at the dying Jesus and declares: "Truly this man was the Son of God." From Elizabeth's Spirit-filled womb to a pagan soldier at a Roman cross, the witness is unanimous.

IV. ADDRESSING THE VERSES DIRECTLY: WHY JESUS HAS A GOD, AND WHY THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
John 20:17 / Ephesians 1:3, 17: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

These verses are not problems. They are precisely what we should expect from a proper doctrine of the Incarnation.

The Chalcedonian definition — one person, two natures, without confusion or separation — is not philosophical creativity. It is the only framework that accounts for all the biblical data simultaneously. As the eternal Son, Jesus shares the Father's divine essence fully and equally. As the incarnate Son, he entered genuine human nature with all its creaturely dependence on God.

Jeremiah 32:27 says: "I am the LORD, the God of all flesh." The Son became flesh (John 1:14). God is therefore the God of his own incarnate Son's human nature — not because the Son is a lesser being, but because he genuinely became flesh. Psalm 22:10 — a Messianic psalm Jesus quotes from the cross — says: "From my mother's womb you have been my God." The Messiah speaks from within his humanity. This is not a concession of lesser divinity. It is the voice of perfect incarnational solidarity.

The key distinction is ontological versus economic:

Ontologically (in terms of being): Father, Son, and Spirit share one divine essence — equal in glory, power, and nature.

Economically (in terms of role within redemption): the Son submits to the Father as the incarnate head of redeemed humanity. Functional submission does not imply essential inferiority, just as a judge on the bench is not ontologically superior to a lawyer who submits to court procedure.

Why He Had to Be Both — The Soteriological Argument

This is where the JW "lesser god" position collapses entirely. Atonement requires:

Truly human: to die as a legitimate substitute in humanity's place (Hebrews 2:14). A purely divine being cannot die. A half-god cannot represent humanity.

Truly sinless: an unblemished sacrifice (Leviticus 22:21), impossible for anyone born within the fall, possible only for the one who entered humanity from outside it.

Truly divine : because the offence of sin against an infinite God requires an infinite atonement. A "lesser god" who is himself a creature cannot bear infinite wrath on behalf of all humanity across all of history. The substitute must be of infinite worth. Only the uncreated God qualifies.

Remove either nature and the atonement fails. The ancient church said it precisely: what is not assumed is not redeemed. He had to fully assume our humanity to fully redeem it — and he had to be fully God to make that redemption of eternal, infinite worth.

V. THE JW'S OWN BIBLE CONVICTS THEIR TRANSLATION

The NWT renders John 1:1c as: "the Word was a god."

Their justification: the Greek θεός in "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" lacks the definite article, therefore it must be indefinite.

Open their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Society. The word-for-word rendering beneath the Greek reads:

"and god was the Word"

No "a." Their interlinear renders it simply "god." The NWT column alongside it says "a god." The Watchtower contradicts itself within the same volume.

On the grammar: Colwell's Rule (E.C. Colwell, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1933) establishes that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb regularly lacks the article. θεός here is precisely that — a pre-verbal predicate nominative. Its anarthrous form is grammatically expected, not theologically significant.

Philip Harner's 1973 JBL study goes further: this construction emphasises the nature or quality of the noun — making the clause mean "the Word was fully divine in nature." Paradoxically, the absence of the article strengthens rather than weakens the claim to deity.

Their own inconsistency exposes the agenda:

John 1:6 — θεοῦ without article: NWT renders it "God" not "a god"
John 1:18 — θεός without article: NWT renders it "God" not "a god"
John 1:1 — θεός without article: NWT renders it "a god"

Same Greek construction.

Three different outcomes — one driven not by grammar but by doctrine. Their rule applies only where it produces their preferred result. That is not translation.

That is ventriloquism.

The JW challenge sounds compelling precisely because it is grounded in real verses. But it rests on a false premise, that having a God and being God are mutually exclusive. Scripture shows they are not, the moment you take the Incarnation seriously.

The Son is God as the eternal Son. In taking on flesh, he did not abandon deity — he added humanity to it. And God became the God of his own human nature, just as he is the God of all flesh. The cross required a Saviour who was both: perfectly human to stand in our place, infinitely divine to make that standing eternally sufficient.

The Old Testament encoded it. Jesus declared it. The Apostles confirmed it. And the JW's own interlinear Bible agrees, they are simply hoping you will not look closely enough to notice.

If you want, I have an in-depth study on this topic, I made. It's a lot more theological and scholarly, and can appear to be dense.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

Every ancient culture had its gods, and every god had a job. The god of the sunrises and sets. The god of the river floods and recedes. The god of war fights and rests. They were defined by their function, and their function had boundaries.

And then a voice speaks from a burning bush on the back side of a desert, and Moses makes the mistake of asking it for a name. The answer he gets back is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. I AM THAT I AM.

This God, unlike the gods of the past, is the ground of all existence itself. Everything that is, is because He is. You cannot name Him because naming Him would require a word bigger than any we have.

And then Jesus of Nazareth walks into the Gospel of John and picks that statement up and puts it in His own mouth. He does it not once but seven times, and each time He is making a claim so enormous that His first-century Jewish audience understood it immediately, even if modern readers who have been stripped of that context often miss it entirely.

“I am the bread of life.” “I am the light of the world.” “I am the door.” “I am the good shepherd.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” “I am the true vine.”

Every single one of those statements begins with ego eimi, which means I AM. Those are the same words the Greek Septuagint used to translate the unpronounceable name God gave Moses at the bush.

Jesus is not using a figure of speech. He is not reaching for a metaphor. He is invoking Exodus 3. He is saying that the uncategorizable, uncontainable, unnameable God that Moses met on the mountain is standing in front of you right now in human skin.

And in case there was any ambiguity left in the room, He removes it completely in John 8:58. The Pharisees are arguing with Him about Abraham, and Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

He does not say I was. He says I AM. He uses the present tense. And the Pharisees picked up stones to kill Him, not because they were confused but because they understood exactly what He was claiming. He was not claiming to be old. He was not claiming to be a prophet. He was claiming to be the voice from the bush.

The I AM statements only work if you understand Exodus. They only carry their world-breaking weight if you know the covenant history, the burning bush, and the divine name that was so holy it could not be spoken aloud.

Jesus did not appear out of nowhere with a startup religion and a set of inspirational quotes. He walked into a story that had been unfolding for two thousand years and said He was the one the story had been about the entire time.

When you cut the Jewish root, when you treat His heritage as incidental, you sever the I AM statements from their foundation.

Those statements are God fulfilling the promise He made at the bush by showing up in person to do what He said He would do.

“I will be what I will be.” And what He chose to be was one of us, a Jewish man from Nazareth who carried the unspeakable name in a body that could bleed.

That is the character of God, and it is the thing that makes the biblical narrative unlike any other religious text on earth. He is not a God who stays abstract and unapproachable, hidden safely. He is a God who came down. He is a God who showed up. He is a God who says I AM and then proves it by becoming someone you can touch.

And He is a God that died for all of our sins so that we may be saved.

[Mex Asher @Thatnsukkaboy_]

Your post asserts three core ideas:

1. The Bible and Qur’an contradict each other.

2. The Qur’an is God’s final and perfected revelation to the last messenger.

3. The Qur’an was sent to “correct the mistakes and alterations in the Bible,” making the older “corrupted version” obsolete.

Each of these is demonstrably false, and the Qur’an itself testifies against you.

The Qur’an repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel as they existed in the 7th century, not as corrupted texts needing replacement.

You claim the Qur’an corrects the Bible. But the Qur’an commands Jews and Christians to judge by their own Scriptures at that time. Here are the verses, quoted verbatim:

“And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” - Qur’an 5:47

If the Gospel was already corrupted, why would Allah command Christians to judge by a corrupted book?

“Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.’” - Qur’an 5:68

Again, the Torah and Gospel are presented as authoritative and intact.

“So if you are in doubt about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.” - Qur’an 10:94.

Muhammad is told to consult the Christians and Jews of his day, the very people holding the same Bible we have today.

“He has sent down upon you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel as guidance for the people…” - Qur’an 3:3-4

The Qur’an does not say it came to correct alterations. It says it confirms the previous revelations.

The doctrine of wholesale textual corruption (tahrif) is a later Islamic interpretation developed centuries after Muhammad to explain why the Qur’an differs so sharply from the Bible. The Qur’an itself never makes that claim.

Your own book testifies that the Scriptures in the hands of 7th century Jews and Christians were trustworthy. Those are the same Scriptures we possess today.

The Bible’s textual integrity is historically unassailable, far stronger than any ancient text.

We have:
- Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, some dating to the 2nd century (e.g., P52, ~125 AD).

- The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BC–1st century AD) matching the Old Testament we read today with 99.5% accuracy.

- Early church fathers quoting the New Testament so extensively that the entire text could be reconstructed from their writings alone.

Compare this to the Qur’an: it was compiled after Muhammad’s death from oral recitations and written fragments, with variant readings (qira’at) still existing today.

Yet no one claims the Qur’an was “corrupted”, because we accept transmission through human means under God’s providence.

The Bible was copied by hand for centuries under persecution, yet the textual variants are minor (spelling, word order) and none affect core doctrines.

There is zero historical evidence of a systematic, worldwide conspiracy to alter the Bible between the time of Jesus and Muhammad. The manuscripts before Islam and after Islam are identical in substance. Your claim of “alterations” is an assertion without evidence.

Jesus Christ is God’s final and complete revelation, not a later prophet.

The Bible is not an “older version” awaiting an upgrade. It is the completed story of redemption:

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things…” - Hebrews 1:1-2

Jesus declares, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6

The New Testament ends with a solemn warning in Revelation 22:18-19: adding to or subtracting from God’s word brings judgment.

The Qur’an, coming 600 years later and contradicting the clear teaching of the Gospels on the crucifixion (Qur’an 4:157 vs. all four Gospels and secular historians like Tacitus and Josephus), the deity of Christ, and the Trinity (which the Qur’an misrepresents as three gods), cannot be a continuation. It is a different message.

The Bible has survived emperors, inquisitions, atheists, and tyrants who tried to destroy it, yet it remains the best-selling book in history, translated into over 3,000 languages, and still transforming lives.

Its “scars” are the scars of a book that has endured the fires of history and emerged victorious.Truth is not determined by lighting effects or Instagram aesthetics.

Truth is determined by what actually happened in history: Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, buried, and rose again, attested by eyewitnesses who died for that claim.

Therefore @MasterMaliq, the choice is not between an “older corrupted version” and a “final perfected revelation.”

The choice is between the historical, eyewitness testimony of the apostles who walked with the risen Christ and the testimony of one man in a cave 600 years later who never met Jesus.

The Bible does not need correcting. It needs to be read. Jesus does not need a successor. He is the final Word.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

If you truly seek truth, read the Gospels for yourself, not through the lens of later polemics, but with an open heart. The same God who spoke through the prophets and His Son still speaks today.

Grace and truth to you in Jesus Christ,

A servant of the risen Lord.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Let me tell you why a Muslim would stab a random Jewish person on the streets of London.

I was raised Muslim, and I know exactly why this happens. It’s not a reaction to the war in Gaza. It’s not oppression. It’s not radicalization. It’s the logical outcome of Islam itself.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Muslim or not, we as human beings carry guilt deep inside us. We know we are not good enough, and we spend our life trying to redeem ourself through good deeds, thinking it will make the suffocating guilt go away.

Christianity for example offers a way out of guilt, a solution not based on your works but on Christ’s.

Salvation isn’t earned, it’s given. You accept that you can’t redeem yourself, because Christ already did everything on your behalf. That means you’re free. Free to live, free to build, free to serve, free to love.

And when a Christian feels lost, broken, and in need of forgiveness, they can go to church, talk to a pastor or priest, and leave knowing they are forgiven.

Islam, on the other hand, doesn’t offer redemption, it weaponizes guilt.

Instead of providing salvation, Allah exposes you, holds your sins over your head, and threatens you with hellfire and torture in the grave.

The Quran isn’t a book of peace, it’s a book of threats. It bullies Muslims into obedience through fear, humiliation, and punishment.

So what happens when a Muslim seeks redemption? They try to be better Muslims.

They pray, fast, give to charity, go on Hajj, do everything Allah commands. But it never works. I know it. I did it.

And no matter how much you pray, no matter how much you try, the guilt never goes away. Because deep down, every Muslim knows it’s not enough. Allah always demands more.

Allah loves those who die fighting against the infidels. That’s not an opinion, it’s in the Quran, in Hadith, in every lesson taught to children.

This is why Muslims, even the so-called "moderates," always hesitate to condemn terrorism. Because they know jihad is required by Allah. They might not be willing to commit it themselves, but they can't say it’s wrong.

So when a Muslim fails to reach peace through religious rituals, they have two choices:

Give up, stop being devout, and learn to live with the guilt, or commit to jihad, because that’s the only way to be true to yourself.

The Quran spells it out clearly: “Kill those who do not worship Allah or obey the Prophet” (9:29).

So when a Muslim embraces this identity fully, killing infidels isn’t just justified, it’s joyful. It’s an act of:

Saving yourself, obeying Allah, securing your eternity, finally escaping the crushing weight of guilt

This is why a Muslim can stab a random jewish person on the streets and feel nothing but satisfaction.

Because for the first time in his life, he finally believes he has done something worthy of redemption.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihteshamali]

A mathematician who shared an office with Claude Shannon at Bell Labs gave one lecture in 1986 that explains why some people win Nobel Prizes and other equally smart people spend their whole lives doing forgettable work.

His name was Richard Hamming. He won the Turing Award. He invented error-correcting codes that made modern computing possible. And he spent 30 years at Bell Labs sitting in a cafeteria at lunch watching which scientists became legendary and which ones faded into nothing.

In March 1986, he walked into a Bellcore auditorium in front of 200 researchers and told them exactly what he had seen.

Here's the framework that has been quoted by every serious scientist for the last 40 years.

His opening line landed like a punch. He said most scientists he worked with at Bell Labs were just as smart as the Nobel Prize winners. Just as hardworking. Just as credentialed. And yet at the end of a 40-year career, one group had changed entire fields and the other group was forgotten by the time they retired.

He wanted to know what the difference actually was. And he said it wasn't luck. It wasn't IQ. It was a specific set of habits that almost nobody is willing to follow.

The first habit was the one that hurts the most to hear. He said most scientists deliberately avoid the most important problem in their field because the odds of failure are too high. They pick a safe adjacent problem, solve it cleanly, publish it, and move on. And because they never swing at the hard problem, they never hit it. He said if you do not work on an important problem, it is unlikely you will do important work. That is not a motivational line. That is a logical one.

The second habit was about doors. Literal doors. He noticed that the scientists at Bell Labs who kept their office doors closed got more done in the short term because they had no interruptions. But the scientists who kept their doors open got more done over a career. The open-door scientists were interrupted constantly. They also absorbed every new idea passing through the hallway. Ten years in, they were working on problems the closed-door scientists did not even know existed.

The third habit was inversion. When Bell Labs refused to give him the team of programmers he wanted, Hamming sat with the rejection for weeks. Then he flipped the question. Instead of asking for programmers to write the programs, he asked why machines could not write the programs themselves. That single inversion pushed him into the frontier of computer science. He said the pattern repeats everywhere. What looks like a defect, if you flip it correctly, becomes the exact thing that pushes you ahead of everyone else.

The fourth habit was the one that hit me the hardest. He said knowledge and productivity compound like interest. Someone who works 10 percent harder than you does not produce 10 percent more over a career. They produce twice as much. The gap doesn't add. It multiplies. And it compounds silently for years before anyone notices.

He finished the lecture with a line I have never been able to shake.

He said Pasteur's famous quote is right. Luck favors the prepared mind. But he meant it literally. You don't hope for luck. You engineer the conditions where luck can land on you. Open doors. Important problems. Inverted questions. Compounded hours. Those are not traits. Those are choices you make every single day.

The transcript has been sitting on the University of Virginia's computer science website for almost 30 years. The video is free on YouTube. Stripe Press reprinted the full lectures as a book in 2020 and Bret Victor wrote the foreword.

Hamming died in 1998. He gave his final lecture a few weeks before. He was 82.

The lecture that explains why some careers become legendary and others disappear is still free. Most people who could benefit from it will never open it.

[Amrieburhe @henconcepts]

@action_ap You are more than a score. Scores can be changed and improved. It’s temporary so don’t take permanent decisions over temporary issues

[The Christian Guy @DeChristianguy]

"They seized my baby and sliced him in two with a knife.

My second child woke up ... They split his head with a machete."

THIS IS THE REALITY FOR NIGERIAN CHRISTIANS.

I think the Pope should know who to preach peace to.

[Amrieburhe @henconcepts]

@mednomics Hmm. The glucose and hypoglycaemia angle is interesting. Awesome teaching

[Amrieburhe @henconcepts]

@action_ap Plateau

[Turning Point UK 🇬🇧 @TPointUK]

Christian students at Kaduna Polytechnic in Nigeria were denied entry to their secular university for not wearing Islamic dress during Ramadan.

Women are being denied an education and the media is silent.

[Malama @MalamaAmaka]

THE ORDEAL OF A NORTHERN NIGERIAN CHRISTIAN.

Mummy Suzanne Shot in the face, the bullet passed through both eyes living her permanently blind😢

The villagers were asked ro deny Jesus or die but she held unto her faith.

She refused to deny Jesus😢

[Harman Singh Kapoor @kingkapoor72]

Still working hard to feed my family with pride and dignity.
The restaurant is not closing, thanks to massive support from patriots. 🙏
Come and enjoy non-halal food at Rangrez, 32 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith W6 9PH.

[Shukri Hamk 🇦🇺 @Yazidisto]

2014 - ISIS
- slaughtered my dad
- raped my little sister
- brainwashed my little brother
- burned my grandma alive
- fed my mom her own baby’s meat
- destroyed my house and temples
- left me no hope
I’m Yazidi people.

[Rev. Ezekiel Dachomo @ezekieldachomo0]

My Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ around the world,

Grace and peace be unto you in the mighty name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Today my heart is heavy, and my spirit cries out. I ask with deep pain in my soul: How many widows shall we continue to comfort? How many mothers must we hold as they weep for husbands who will never return?

How many children must grow up calling strangers “father” because violence has taken their own?
Every day we stand before broken families, telling them “Take heart, the Lord is with you.” We wipe tears, we pray, we preach hope but the wounds of our people are deep. The cries of the suffering rise like incense before God.
My beloved brethren, our nation needs you urgently. Your prayers, your voices, your compassion, and your unity are needed now more than ever.

The body of Christ must not sleep when the members are in pain.
Yet in the midst of sorrow, we remember the promise of our God.

The Scripture says in Book of Psalms 91:1:
“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.”
Oh God, You have given us this assurance. When we run to You, when we hide in Your presence, You become our refuge and our fortress. Even when the storm rages, Your shadow covers Your children.
But Lord, strengthen Your people. Strengthen the widows who cry in the night. Strengthen the children who wake up asking where their fathers are. Strengthen the Church that is carrying so much pain.

To the Christian world, I say with tears in my eyes: do not forget your brothers and sisters who suffer. Stand with us in prayer. Lift up your voices before God. Let love move you to compassion and action.
For the Lord is still our defender.
The Lord is still our refuge.
And the Lord will not abandon His people.
May the God of heaven hear the cries of His children, comfort every widow, heal every broken heart, and restore peace to the land.
In Jesus’ mighty name.
Amen.

[Deacon Nick Donnelly @ProtecttheFaith]

One year ago

Christians were being crucified again in the Middle East

Islamist jihadists were crucifying Christians in Syria while the Vatican and certain cardinals celebrated Ramadan

Please pray for our fellow Christians in Syria
(I won't post the video, its too bestial)

[Andrew Lawton @AndrewLawton]

Sean Fraser claims religious freedom isn't jeopardized by Bill C-9, but he refuses to denounce Marc Miller's claim that prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain verses of scripture.

[Amrieburhe @henconcepts]

@jasonryanmd It’s an awesome document

[Amrieburhe @henconcepts]

@Thatnsukkaboy_ Thanks Asher

[Mex Asher @Thatnsukkaboy_]

A full apologetic response to the Uti Dawah's Polemic Against Christianity (Part 2).

Find the Part 1 here: (https://t.co/64WOkmNccH)

POINT 5: "ONLY IN CHRISTIANITY CAN YOU DRESS HALF-NAKED IN CHURCH, DRINK ALCOHOL, AND COMMIT 419 FRAUD, IT IS ALL ACCEPTABLE"

The preacher claims that immodest dressing, alcohol consumption, and financial fraud are uniquely tolerated and even condoned within Christianity.

THE FULL REFUTATION
This Confuses Cultural Corruption With Biblical Doctrine: This is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest argument in the entire speech.

The preacher is looking at the failures of AFRICAN CHURCHES, a cultural phenomenon blending local traditions, gospel excesses, and Christian vocabulary, and presenting it as 'Christianity.'

By this same logic, we could condemn Islam by pointing to the corruption rampant in Saudi Arabia's royal family, the honour killings in Pakistan, or the drug trade flourishing in certain Muslim-majority regions.

Every tradition has cultural corruptions. The question is: what does the founding text actually say?

Scripture on Modesty:
- 1 Timothy 2:9: 'Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.'
- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: 'Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit... glorify God in your body.'

Any church that endorses immodest dressing is in direct violation of Scripture, not in conformity with it.

Scripture on Alcohol: The Eucharist uses wine, instituted by Christ himself at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27-29). This is sacramental, not recreational. Ephesians 5:18 is explicit: 'Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.' Churches that promote drunkenness are defying their own Scriptures.

Scripture on Financial Fraud:
- Exodus 20:15: 'You shall not steal.'
- Ephesians 4:28: 'Let the thief no longer steal.'
- Luke 19:8: Zacchaeus, upon encountering Jesus, voluntarily gave back fourfold what he had stolen.
- Proverbs 11:1: 'A false balance is an abomination to the Lord.'
- Amos 8:4-7: God pronounces judgment on those who cheat the poor.

Christianity has the most extensive financial ethics framework of any religion in history. '419' pastors are contradicting their own Bible, not following it.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
Saudi Arabia (the homeland and custodian of Islam's holiest sites) is a monarchy in which the ruling family controls trillions of dollars in oil wealth while millions of migrant workers are exploited in conditions amounting to modern slavery. Corruption is rampant across Islamic-majority nations from West Africa to the Gulf States to Central Asia.

Are we to blame Islam for these cultural failures? Of course not, and the preacher knows this.

The standard he applies to Christianity he refuses to apply to Islam. Furthermore, Surah 4:3 permits Muslim men to marry up to four wives. Surah 4:34 states that men may 'daraba' (strike) disobedient wives, a verse so controversial that contemporary Islamic scholars have spent decades trying to reinterpret it.

These are texts in the Quran, not peripheral cultural corruptions. The preacher accuses Christianity of condoning immorality based on the actions of corrupt congregants, while refusing to apply the same scrutiny to Quranic texts that many consider inherently problematic.

POINT 6: "THEY SELL WINE AS THE BLOOD OF JESUS WORLDWIDE, HOW MUCH IS THAT BLOOD? IT IS FRAUD"

The preacher mocks the Eucharist as a fraudulent commercial enterprise, questioning how the blood of one man could be shared globally.

THE FULL REFUTATION
The Eucharist Is an Act of Obedience, Not Commerce: Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). It is the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, commanded by Christ himself: 'Do this in remembrance of me.'

Whether one holds to Catholic transubstantiation, Lutheran consubstantiation, or Protestant symbolic memorial, this is a sacramental act of worship.

The 'How Much Blood?' Argument Is a Category Error: The preacher treats 'the blood of Christ' as a finite biological quantity being physically divided.

This misunderstands the theological claim.

In the same way that the sun's light reaches billions of people simultaneously without being divided or diminished, the saving work of Christ is not a finite physical commodity. The bread and cup are signs pointing to a theological reality, the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 9:12; 10:10).

Charging for Communion Is a Corruption: If churches charge money for the Eucharist, that is indeed a corruption, Simon Magus tried to purchase spiritual gifts in Acts 8:18-20 and was rebuked sharply. But this is a failure of corrupt churches, not of Christian doctrine itself.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
The Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim is required to perform) generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Saudi government.

The commercialization of Islamic holy sites is on an industrial scale: luxury hotels tower over the Kaaba, the sacred sites are surrounded by high-end malls, and the experience of pilgrimage has become increasingly stratified by wealth.

Zamzam water (presented as sacred) is bottled and sold commercially. Televangelists selling blessings find their parallel in Islamic scholars and shaykhs charging for ruqya (spiritual healing), taweez (amulets), and spiritual consultations across the Muslim world. The corruption of religion and commerce is a universal human failure. The preacher should not throw stones from glass houses.

POINT 7: "WHERE DID JESUS HAVE A CHOIR? YOUR WORSHIP METHODS WERE NOT USED BY CHRIST"

The preacher challenges the legitimacy of contemporary Christian worship forms (specifically choirs and musical worship) arguing that Jesus never employed them.

THE FULL REFUTATION
The Old Testament Mandates Musical Worship:
- Psalm 150 (the final word of the entire Psalter) commands praise with trumpets, lutes, harps, tambourines, dancing, strings, pipes, and clashing cymbals.
- 1 Chronicles 15:16: King David 'commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brothers as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals.'

This Levitical choir was not a cultural invention; it was divinely ordained.

Jesus Himself Sang: Matthew 26:30: 'And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.' Jesus and his disciples sang at the Last Supper. The Hallel Psalms (113-118) were the traditional Passover hymns sung at this occasion.

The New Testament Commands Musical Worship:
- Ephesians 5:19: 'addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart.'
- Colossians 3:16 — 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly... singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.'
- Revelation 5:8-9 — the twenty-four elders sing a 'new song' before the Lamb in heaven itself.

Principle vs. Form: Christianity does not require rigid replication of first-century Palestinian worship forms. The principle of sung praise is mandated; the cultural expression is contextual. The church in Ghana expressing that praise with Ghanaian musical instruments and harmonies is not a corruption, it is the Gospel taking root in culture, precisely as the Great Commission intended.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
The adhan (call to prayer) is not found in the Quran. It was introduced by the Prophet after a companion reportedly had a dream about it. The specific format of the five daily prayers (salah) is derived not from the Quran but from Hadith tradition.

Sufi Islam, which constitutes hundreds of millions of Muslims, practices sama (devotional music and whirling dance) as legitimate worship.
The Qawwali musical tradition of South Asian Islam is centuries old.

If the question is 'where did the Prophet himself do this?' (most of the ritual structures of Islamic practice cannot be found verbatim in the Quran).
The preacher has no standing to criticize Christian worship innovation.

POINT 8: "AFRICAN AND GHANAIAN CHRISTIANS ARE PATHETIC, THEIR ANCESTORS WERE ENSLAVED AND FORCED TO CONVERT; ISLAM CAME PEACEFULLY"

The preacher argues that African Christianity is a product of colonial violence and forced conversion, that enslaved Africans were taken to church while in chains, making African Christians 'slave masters' products.' He contrasts this with Islam, which he claims arrived in Africa (including the Asante kingdom) peacefully in the 10th century, with nobody forced to attend mosque.

THE FULL REFUTATION
African Christianity Predates European Colonialism by Over a Thousand Years: The preacher's ignorance of African church history is staggering.

Consider:
The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), an African official of the Queen of Ethiopia was baptized by Philip the Evangelist in the first generation after Christ. Christianity has African roots from the very beginning of the Church.

The Coptic Church of Egypt is traditionally founded by the Apostle Mark in Alexandria around 42 AD. This is FIVE CENTURIES before Islam was born. The Coptic Church produced Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, three of the most influential theologians in Christian history.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, one of the oldest Christian institutions in the world, formally established when King Ezana of Aksum converted around 330 AD. Over 1,200 years before European colonial expansion.

The North African Church, Tertullian (Carthage, modern Tunisia), Augustine of Hippo (Algeria), and Cyprian were all African. The theological foundations of Western Christianity were largely built by Africans.

African Christianity is not the slave master's import. African Christianity IS Christianity's cradle. The preacher has casually erased over a millennium of African Christian history to score a rhetorical point.

The Claim That Islam Arrived in Africa Peacefully Is Historically False: This is one of the most egregious lies in the entire speech.

Let the historical record speak:
The Arab Conquest of North Africa (639-709 AD): General Amr ibn al-As invaded Egypt in 641 AD by military force. Uqba ibn Nafi conducted violent military campaigns across Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. The Berber queen Dihya (known as Kahina) died in battle RESISTING the Arab Islamic conquest of her people. This is not 'peaceful arrival', it is military conquest.

The Trans-Saharan Islamic Slave Trade: This is a subject the preacher will never mention. Arab Muslim traders conducted a slave trade from sub-Saharan Africa that lasted approximately 1,300 years, from the 7th century to the 20th century. Scholars estimate that between 10 and 17 million Africans were enslaved and transported northward and eastward by Arab Muslim traders. The Atlantic slave trade (which the preacher rightly condemns) lasted approximately 400 years. The Islamic slave trade lasted over three times as long and was no less brutal.

The Moroccan Invasion of Songhai (1591): The Moroccan Saadian Sultan Ahmad al-Mansur (a Muslim) sent an army to destroy the Songhai Empire, sacking Timbuktu and massacring the very African Islamic scholars the preacher romanticizes. African Islamic scholarly culture was destroyed by a fellow Muslim ruler. The preacher was apparently unaware.

The Fulani Jihads (19th century): The jihad of Usman dan Fodio in the early 1800s forcibly Islamized large portions of what is now northern Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon. Millions of West Africans were brought into the Islamic fold through military conquest, not peaceful da'wah.

The Asante Kingdom Writing Arabic: Yes, Asante scholars used Arabic script, as a trade and diplomatic script, adopted for its literacy utility, in the same way medieval Europeans used Latin. The Arabic script being used does not mean everyone in the kingdom voluntarily embraced Islam, and it certainly does not erase the violent Islamization occurring across the Sahel region.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
The preacher condemns European Christian colonizers for enslaving Africans while converting them, and this condemnation is legitimate, and honest Christians agree. But the ARAB ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE dwarfs the Atlantic slave trade in duration and arguably in scale.

For over 1,300 years, Arab Muslim traders enslaved Africans across the Sahara, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Castration was routinely performed on male African slaves bound for Arab markets, a practice so widespread that the demographic signature of African male slaves is virtually absent from the Middle East and North Africa compared to the African diaspora in the Americas.

The descendants of African slaves taken to the Americas maintained their descendants' population and became visible and numerous. The descendants of African men enslaved by Arab Muslims were largely erased through systematic castration. Saudi Arabia legally abolished slavery only in 1962, a year after John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as US President.

Mauritania did not criminalize slavery until 2007.

These are not ancient historical grievances; they are near-contemporary realities. The preacher is free to speak of colonial Christianity's sins, but he must be made to answer for Islamic Africa's slave trade first.

POINT 9: "JESUS WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, HE CALLED NON-ISRAELITES "DOGS", GHANAIANS CHRISTIANS ARE DOGS ACCORDING TO JESUS"

Citing Matthew 15:24, the preacher argues that Jesus explicitly limited his mission to Israel, and in the same passage (Matthew 15:26) called a non-Israelite woman's daughter a 'dog.' He argues that Ghanaians, not being Israelites, are therefore excluded from Christ's salvation.

THE FULL REFUTATION
Context Is Everything: This Is a Test of Faith, Not a Final Verdict:

Matthew 15:21-28 must be read as a complete unit. Jesus initially focused his earthly ministry on Israel, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (v.24). The Canaanite woman persisted in her plea. When Jesus mentioned the children's bread not being given to dogs, she responded with remarkable faith: 'Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table' (v.27).
Jesus's immediate response: 'O woman, GREAT IS YOUR FAITH! Let it be done for you as you desire' (v.28) , and her daughter was healed instantly. The word the preacher stops at is the test; he ignores the triumphant conclusion where a non-Israelite Gentile woman receives healing and is commended as having GREAT faith. This is not an exclusion of Gentiles; it is a story celebrating a Gentile's faith.

Progressive Revelation and Salvation History: Christianity teaches that God's plan of redemption moved from the particular to the universal: first through Abraham's family, then Israel, then to all nations through the Messiah. Romans 1:16 says 'to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.' This is a sequence of historical priority, not permanent exclusion.

The Great Commission Obliterates This Argument: Matthew 28:18-20, the FINAL and definitive command of the risen Christ: 'Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS (panta ta ethne — all ethnic groups), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' Ghana is in 'all nations.' Ewe people are in 'all ethnic groups.' This is the most explicit possible mandate. The preacher cites a pre-resurrection interaction to contradict a post-resurrection universal command. This is not scholarship; it is selective quotation.

- Acts 10: Peter received a vision from God explicitly telling him that Gentiles (non-Jews) are included in the Gospel. Cornelius, a Roman Gentile, was filled with the Holy Spirit.
- Galatians 3:28: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'
- Acts 8: The Gospel reached an Ethiopian African in the very first generation after Pentecost.
- Revelation 7:9: A 'great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne', Ghanaians, Ewes, and all Africans are explicitly included.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
The Quran repeatedly distinguishes between believers (mu'minun) and unbelievers (kafirs, mushrikeen, and munafiqeen). Surah 9:5 declares: 'When the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them.' Christians are often classified as mushrikeen (polytheists) in Islamic polemic because of the Trinity.

If we are following the preacher's logic of reading texts in isolation, is the Quran telling Muslims to kill Ghanaian Christians and Non-Muslims?

The preacher will say this verse has context. Yes, and so does Matthew 15:24.

Context applies to both scriptures or neither.

POINT 10: "ONLY 144,000 FROM THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL GO TO HEAVEN, GHANAIANS ARE NOT AMONG THEM"

Using Revelation 7:4-8, the preacher argues that those sealed to go to heaven are 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel (12,000 per tribe) and that since Ghanaians are not Israelites, they have no place in heaven according to the Christian Bible.

THE FULL REFUTATION
The Preacher Has Adopted a Jehovah's Witness Hermeneutic: The interpretation of the 144,000 as a literal ethnic headcount is associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, a group considered heterodox by historic Christianity.

This is an irony the preacher should appreciate: he is using a fringe interpretation to attack mainstream Christianity.

Revelation Is Apocalyptic Literature, Not a Literal Census: The book of Revelation is written in the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, a highly symbolic mode of writing using numbers, beasts, colors, and visions as theological symbols, not literal descriptions.

Numbers in Revelation are consistently symbolic:
7 = divine completeness (7 churches, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls)
12 = God's covenant people (12 tribes + 12 apostles)
1,000 = vast completeness
144,000 = 12 x 12 x 1,000 = the complete, total number of God's redeemed people, a symbol of comprehensiveness, not a literal head count.

Revelation 7:9 Immediately Follows and Destroys the Preacher's Argument: The very next verse after the 144,000 reads: 'After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes' (Revelation 7:9). This INNUMERABLE, UNIVERSAL multitude from EVERY NATION stands before God. It explicitly includes Ghanaians, Ewes, Nigerians, and all peoples. The preacher read verses 4-8 and stopped. The answer to his objection is literally in verse 9.

MIRROR ON ISLAM
The preacher claims that Revelation 7 shows that the people prostrating with foreheads on the ground in white robes are obviously muslims.

Let us apply the same textual precision he demands: Revelation 7:14 says these robed figures 'have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' The Lamb (arnion in Greek) is the primary title for Jesus Christ throughout Revelation (used 29 times).

These figures are saved not through Islamic prayer postures but through the atoning work of Christ. Furthermore, Revelation 22:1-2 describes the healing of the nations coming from the throne of God AND of the Lamb, meaning Jesus shares God's throne.

This is not Islamic monotheism; it is Trinitarian theology confirmed in the very last pages of the Bible.

Part 3 will be the made and tweeted asap!!