الثلاثاء، 22 أكتوبر، 2013

Quran as a Mass Media Instrument, Shayhk Khalid Yasin

القرأن الكريم كاملاً أحمد العجمي - YouTube

The Miracles of Jesus - The Religion of Islam

The Return of Jesus (part 1 of 5) - The Religion of Islam

Does God Exist ? - هل الله موجود ؟

Allah is the name of God in the Bible


Allah is the name of God in the Bible


“Elohim (sometimes El or Elah), English for “God,” the first of the three primary names of Deity, is a uni-plural noun formed from El-strength, or the Strong One, and ALAH, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness.”

this photo is of a page from the Scofield Reference Bible, edited by Rev. C. I. Scofield,D.D.

backed by eight other D.D.'s:

Rev. Henry G. Weston, D.D., LL.D.
President Crozer Theological Seminary.

Rev. W. G. Moorehead, D.D.
President Xenia (U.I,) Theological Seminary.

Rev. lames M. Gray, D.D.
President Moody Bible Institute.

Rev. Elmore Harris, D.D.
President Toronto Bible Institute.

Rev. William Erdman, D.D.
Author "The Gospel of John," etc.

Rev. Arthur T. Pierson, D.D.
Author, Editor, Teacher, etc.
Rev. William L. Pettingill, D.D.
Author, Editor, Teacher.

Arno C. Gaebelein,
Author "Harmoney of Prophetic Word," etc.

The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield, that popularized dispensationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. Published by Oxford University Press and containing the traditional Protestant King James Version of the Bible, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917

Who is Jesus?



According to Himself
"you determined to kill me (Jesus), a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God" [John 8:40]


According to the Disciples
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
[Acts 2:22]

According to people in his lifetime
"Concerning, Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" [Luke 24:19]

According to the Quran
"[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet." [Quran 19:30]

But according to Paul
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
[Colossians 2:9]


YOU HAVE THE CHOICE, YOU CAN FOLLOW JESUS AND THE TRUTH OR YOU CAN FOLLOW PAUL/SAUL OF TARSUS
— مع ‏‎Macky Sanlitan‎‏ و ‏‏11‏ آخرين‏.

Jamaraat

حاجه مسنة في الجمرات ترمي وهي محموله من رجال الامن.. جزاهم الله خيراً
An old woman at the Jamaraat bridge was carried by the security men to help her.. May Allah reward them well

Marriage of Mary To Joseph the Carpenter & More



بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

I recently wrote a few articles on the history of marriage i.e., when girls were married off. This article examines how old Joseph the Carpenter was when he married Mary mother of Jesus. Joseph the carpenter married Mary when she was 12 years old and Joseph was 80 to 90 years old. They lived with each other from that day on. Now Christians say: -“she stayed virgin for the rest of her life,” meaning they were never intimate. But I don’t believe that, because the whole point of marriage is reproduce and show love to each other. All early Christian sources say Mary was 12 years old when she married Joseph the carpenter. One of the main reasons why I wrote this article is because of the hypocrisy of Christian missionaries and their double standards. They slander the Prophet Muhammed’s (pbuh) marriage with Aisha even though by their standards she was considered to be an adult. But they never question Joseph’s marriage with Mary. The majority of the earliest sources that are available today from the Church fathers all agreed that Joseph was between 80 to 90 years old at-least, when he was married to 12 year old Mary. Another issue they will never try to question is: Why did the Holy Spirit impregnate such a young girl? Couldn’t the Holy Spirit find an older woman?

It is only right to write this article and give Christian missionaries a taste of their own medicine.

1. What is the definition of Apocrypha?
If you ask any Christian what the word ‘Apocrypha’ means they would say something along the lines “it means it is not authentic or spurious.” Meaning in other words it is fake; it is not original. This is a recent meaning. Originally ‘Apocrypha’ meant “secret or hidden”, this was the ancient meaning.
James Vanderkan says:
“Apocrypha is a plural word (singular: apocryphan) that originally denoted hidden or secret writings, to be read only by initiates into a given Christian group.” [1]
Zlatko Plese:
“The term apocryphan signifies “that which is hidden” or “concealed”- some intimate secret shared only by the chosen few.” [2]
Catherine M. Murphy:
apocryphan- secret or hidden book, such as the Apocryphan of James (a.k.a. secret Book of James). [3]
Sylvia Francke:
“We owe the term apocryphal, since apocryphan in its original connotation means ‘a secret book’.” [4]
Diana Webb says:
“…the word apocrypha as it is a word that is greatly misunderstood. It comes from Greek and is formed from the combination of apo (away) and krytein (hide or conceal). Thus, it signifies that which is ‘hidden away’ or ‘concealed’. Apocryphan is the singular form and apocrypha the plural. These words are used to describe the nature of a certain body of ancient religious writings. The word apocrypha, like many other words has undergone a major change in meaning throughout the centuries. With regard to these ancient books, the word apocrypha ORIGINALLY MEANT A TEXT TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS. It needed to be hidden away and reserved for the spirituality mature. It was a term of dignity and respect. To those who revered the apocryphal books, they were ‘hidden’ because they contained teachings that were too sacred to be revealed except to the initiated.” [5]

What is interesting is Protestant Christians are quick to reject Apocrypha books. But when we ask Christians: “Why do you accept the book of Hebrews?” they have no answer. All scholars agree unanimously that they do not know who wrote the book, yet Christians still accept the book as scripture. As I have established that Apocrypha originally meant ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’, now we move to the next section.

Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph

Catholic Encyclopaedia says:
“When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”). A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place.” [6]
One thing needs to be remembered, although they say that she was 12 years old when she was betrothed to 90 year old Joseph, most Christians of TODAY reject that story because Joseph would be labelled a paedophile. As we will investigate shortly, you will see that most early Church fathers believed Mary was very young girl when she married Joseph, Joseph who was at least 80 to 90 years old at the time.
‘History of Joseph the Carpenter’ also confirms that Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph. Chapter 3 and 4 says:

3. Now when righteous Joseph became a widower, my mother Mary, blessed, holy, and pure, was already twelve years old. For her parents offered her in the temple when she was three years of age, and she remained in the temple of the Lord nine years. Then when the priests saw that the virgin, holy and God-fearing, was growing up, they spoke to each other, saying: Let us search out a man, righteous and pious, to whom Mary may be entrusted until the time of her marriage; lest, if she remain in the temple, it happen to her as is wont to happen to women, and lest on that account we sin, and God be angry with us.

4. Therefore they immediately sent out, and assembled twelve old men of the tribe of Judah. And they wrote down the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. And the lot fell upon the pious old man, righteous Joseph. Then the priests answered, and said to my blessed mother: Go with Joseph, and be with him till the time of your marriage. Righteous Joseph therefore received my mother, and led her away to his own house. And Mary found James the Less in his father’s house, broken-hearted and sad on account of the loss of his mother, and she brought him up. Hence Mary was called the mother of James. Luke 24:10 Thereafter Joseph left her at home, and went away to the shop where he wrought at his trade of a carpenter. And after the holy virgin had spent two years in his house her age was exactly fourteen years, including the time at which he received her. [7]
Infancy Gospel of James also says she was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph See the link here
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html

2. Marriage in Ancient Jewish times
One must remember in Ancient Israelite times once a girl was betrothed, sexual intimacy was allowed, there was no law against that, nor does the Bible say against it. So for Mary to be betrothed it did not mean that Joseph and Mary could not get intimate together. Here is an article I have written already on Ancient Jewish Marriages:

3. Experts agree that Joseph was a very, very old man
De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says:
“The following ‘Facts about virgin Mary’ are taken from one of the Apocryphal gospels- the ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ a book that was popular and believed to be genuine in the so-called Evangelical of the Church. It is reproduced here from the ‘Revelations of Antichrist:’ Joseph was a widower with four sons and two daughters, all married but James and Judas. Joseph was a Priest as well as a Carpenter, but lived mostly by the latter trade. Mary had been brought up in the temple till she was twelve years old, when the priests sought to intrust her to the care of some pious old man who wanted a wife. So they assembled twelve old men, who raffled for Mary. The ex-priest and carpenter won and was betrothed to her at once, the marriage to be postponed until she reached a suitable age. But he took her to his house and kept her two years, when she became a mother by the Holy Ghost.
When Joseph discovered the condition Mary was in he became sorely troubled, and could not eat or drink for a whole day. He thought of hushing up the scandal by putting her away secretly. (It is not said whether he suspected his son James, who was most tenderly attached to his prospective step-mother. When she first came she found him broken-hearted at the recent loss of his own mother, but the advent of a lovely maiden, who, though some years his junior, assumed the relations of a mother to him, soon assuaged his grief; and she, caring for him as a loving step-mother knows how, became known as ‘the mother of James,’ even before she became a wife to his father. The absence of Joseph, who had to be away at work at his trade, to say nothing of his age, which was then ninety-two, no doubt tended to strengthen the ties between the son and the female guardian.) Joseph was not long left to remain in trouble about the condition of Mary. In the Midst of his distress he fell asleep at noonday, and had a dream, in which Gabriel appeared to him and explained the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. That was enough; happiness was restored. The angelic friend had tied up the storm. The far-off magi made haste to welcome the new-born king of the Jews. But the wicked Herod was wroth with them for not telling where the infant was, so he might go and worship him also. Jesus grew up and worked with his reputed father Joseph at the Carpenter trade, and lived in sweet accord with his two half-brothers, until the death of their father Joseph, who lived to the ripe age of 111 years. These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” [8]

De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says that the book ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ was believed and genuine by Early Evangelical Church. Not just that but he also mentions that when Joseph married Mary she was 12 years old and he was 90 years old. On top of that at the end of his statement on ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ he says: — “These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” He himself agrees that the statements where it mentions that Joseph bring 90 year old and Mary 12 is true and should be accepted. This is not the only place where it mentions Mary being 12 years old when married off.
Bernard L. Fontana also mentions that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph 90 years old when married:
“Thanks to the apocrypha writings, which inspired many artists over the ages, the popular belief became widespread that Joseph had first married when he was forty years old and fathered six children by his wife before she died when he was eighty-nine years old. The youngest of his child was said to be James the Less, ‘Christ’s brother.’ This tradition holds that Joseph was ninety years old when he went to Jerusalem to join other candidates seeking the hand of the twelve- to fourteen year old Mary in Marriage.”[9]

4. Early Church Fathers Believed Joseph was 80 to 90 years old when he married 12 year old Mary
Yes right the very advanced age of Joseph marrying Mary was true and accepted by most early Church Fathers.
Reverend Jeremiah Jones writes about 2 to 3 pages long that Infancy Protevangelion of James was accepted by Early Church Fathers as truthful account of Mary and Joseph’s marriage. If one reads the Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelion of James), in Chapter 8 it says that Mary was married to Joseph when she was 12 years old.
“…..His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias—that he begat him when he was about forty years old: after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old married Mary. Besides Epiphanius, several other of the Greek fathers have given into this same opinion, viz. Hilary, Chrysostome, Cyrill, Euthyymius, Theophylact, Cecumenius, and generally, as bishop Peaterson says: ‘all Latin fathers till Ambrose, and the Greeks afterward; from which it is very evident that the account of Joseph’s age and family, which is in the Gospel of the Birth Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, met with very general credit among ancient Christians.” [10]
Charles Burlingame Waite was a United States lawyer, jurist also cites Epiphanies that Joseph was 80 years old when he married Mary:
“Joseph was very old when he married Mary, and had been many years a widower; that he was the brother of Clophas, the son of James, surnamed Panther; that he had his first wife of the tribe of Judah, and by her six children, to wit, four sons and two daughters. His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias, (this probably taken from Eusebius, Ecc, Hist. 2. 23), that he begat him when he was about forty years old; after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death, he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old, married Mary.”- Epiph. Haeres. 78, see. 8.[11]
As you have read most Church Early fathers believed Mary was married of when she was 12 years old and Joseph the carpenter was a very old man. Here is the list of fathers who believed that Joseph was fourscore years old when he married 12 year old Mary:
1. Epiphanius (Born 310Ad – Died 403Ad)
2. Hilary (Hilarius) of Poitiers (Born 300 – Died 368Ad)
3. John Chrysostom (Born between 344 and 349 – Died 407Ad)
4. Cyril of Alexandria (Born 376Ad – Died 444Ad)
5. Saint Euthymius the Great (Born 377 – Died 20 January 473)
6. Theophylact of Ohrid (also known as Theophylact of Bulgaria) (Born 1055 – 1107)
7. Cecumenius
8. Eusebius (Born 263 – Died 339 Ad)

5. Did Mary stay a Virgin whole her life?
Christians might say that she stayed virgin whole her life and it is insignificant if Joseph was an old man or not. But that is not correct, if we read Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1 verse 25 it clearly says that Joseph had sexual intimacy with Mary after Jesus was born.
New Living Translation Matthew 1:25
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
There you have it, the word of God has spoken the truth for once. The verse says that they were not intimate until Jesus was born. That is a very powerful verse, plus all the statements from the Early Church fathers who believed that Joseph was 80 – 90 years old and Mary being 12 is true historically. Before Missionaries accuse me of twisting their scripture on Matthew 1:25, let’s see what Christians experts have to say on the verse:
Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew by Charles H. Talbert says:
“Did Mary have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus’s birth? Among the earliest witnesses, Tertulian (Mar. 4.19) and Irenaeus (Haer. 3.16, 21, 22) say yes.” [12]
Tony Coffey says:
“……Matthew stated that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary ‘until she gave birth to a son.’ This tells us that after Jesus birth, Joseph and Mary had a normal sexual relationship like any other couple.
The point needs to be made that there was nothing unholy about Mary and Joseph having sex. How could there be? Marriage was designed by God, with sex as one of its blessings. It must be remembered that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married. Like any engaged couple, they may have discussed, among other matters, having children. Such a discussion would not have been unholy. Sex within the bounds of marriage has the endorsement of God. The notion of marriage without sex is the opposite of what scriptures teach: ‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral’ (Hebrews 13:4).
The Apostle Paul was very outspoken about the place of sex in marriage and the mutual obligation of both husband and wife to fulfil the sexual desires of their partner……” [13]
Ben Witherington III is an American New Testament scholar. Professor Witherinton also comments on Matthew 1:25, he says:
“Matthew 1:25 has caused no end of theological debate over the centuries. Joseph is said to ‘take’ his wife, ‘but he was not knowing her until she gave birth to a son.’ This seems to reinforce what was said in Matthew 1:18 and implies that Joseph abstained from sexual intercourse with Mary until Jesus was born. The verb here ‘he was not knowing’ (eginosken) is in the imperfect and stresses a specific period of time after which he was ‘knowing’ her in the biblical sense of sexual intercourse. As Matthew 17:9 and its similar construction show, a negative statement followed by ‘until which time’ always implies that the negated action will take place after the allotted time (indicated by the participle) is up. The end of the time is indicated by the aorist verb ‘gave birth’ (eteken). Therefore, it is most likely that this verse rules out the idea of Mary’s perpetual Virginity being part of Matthew’s theology.” [14]
Phil Moore:
“Some Christian traditions see Mary as a ‘perpetual virgin’ who never had sex with Joseph. I find this impossible to reconcile with the straightforward teaching of Matthew 1:25; 12:46; 13:55.” [15]
The NIV Application Commentary by Matthew J. Wilkins also agrees that the verse in Matthew 1:25 is talking about sexual intercourse taking place after Jesus birth:
“…(1:25). The delicate way of Matthew phrases this expression (lit., ‘he was not knowing her’) was a common way of referring to abstaining from sexual intercourse in both Hebrew and Greek. Sexual abstinence maintained Joseph and Mary’s ritual purification the pregnancy as well as ensured that Jesus was virgin-born. But this is not a hint of continued celibacy after Jesus birth. The word ‘until’ most naturally means that Mary and Joseph had normal marital sexual relations after Jesus birth, from which other children were born (see 12:46, 13:55).” [16]

6. Holy Spirit Impregnated Mary when she was 12 – 14 years old – Paedophilia?
One would seem shocked by the title of this section. But this is true, if one reads certain passages in the Bible, one would realise straight away that sexuality was involved in Mary’s pregnancy. Let’s have a read of the verses:
John 3:16 King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Let me now show what the word ‘beget’, begotten’ means:
The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1911) says:
beget v.t. (-tt-, -got, -gotten). Procreate (usu. Of father, sometimes of father and mother, cf bear);….. [17]
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Eleventh Edition says:
…begotten: (1) : OFFSPRING (2) : the entire progeny of a male animal b: lineage….[18]
Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
Beget, be-get, v.t. to produce or cause : to generate : to produce as an effect, to cause :– pr.p beget’ting ; pa.t. begat’, begot : pa.p begot , begot’ten. –n. Beget’ter, one who begets: a father : the agent that occasions or originates anything…. [19]
What are we supposed to me make of statements like that in the Bible, that the God begets a Son? This is exactly the same as human by human or animal by animal relationship. We as Muslims object to the word ‘begotten’ because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can Christians attribute such a lowly capacity to God? The words are crystal clear; anybody reading the above mentioned verse would straight away believe/think that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary and this is the case.
The language of the next verse clearly shows sexual intimacy. Read the verse for yourselves:
King James 2000 Bible Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall COME UPON YOU, and the power of the Highest shall OVERSHADOW YOU: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.
In Luke 1:35 when the words ‘COME UPON YOU’ is used this sounds exactly like husband come upon his wife.
There are Christians that believe that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary not just that but also Mary became a WIFE of God. Here is one of the commentaries on Luke by a Christian (Mormon), it says:
God, the Father of our spirits, became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom he begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: ‘He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.’ It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied ‘the highest’ when he overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of ‘the Highest,’ that when ‘He’ should overshadow her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the father without being consumed; but it was the personage of the father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters whom He begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father- the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.
The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a father. Therefore, the father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the LAWFUL WIFE OF GOD THE FATHER : we use the term LAWFUL wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph ; for such a heinious crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and PLEASURE He had a lawful right to overshadow the virgin Mary in the capacity of a HUSBAND, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. In as much as god was the First HUSBAND to HER, it may be that he only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. [20]
David Jay Jordan a Christian comments on the word “OVERSHADOW” from Luke 1:35, he says:
And if you didn’t know it the word ‘overshadowed’ is just another delicate discreet way of saying a man got on top of a woman, casting his shadow over her, and entered her with his penis and ‘made love’ to her. This is just the good old-fashioned missionary way of producing babies. The woman gets ‘overshadowed’…or as King Solomon via the Holy Spirit said… His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. (Song of Solomon 2: 6) Because her lover is over top of her…. and he is overshadowing her …..’and his banner over me was love’ (2: 4).
Do clouds penetrate into the womb ?…. Does gas produce babies ? The answer obviously NO. The Lord created sperm to break thru the egg of a woman to combine with the cell of a woman to reproduce into a new body for a new soul. That’s the Lord’s biology, that’s His embryology. That’s the Lord’s sexuality.
Mathew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is CONCEIVED IN her is of the Holy Ghost.
And the conception happened INSIDE Mary’s womb.
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB.
If you want to read more on this, click on the link below. I didn’t add some other points he brought up, I think it is distasteful:
http://www.davidjayjordan.com/OvershadowingofVirginMary.html
From everything presented above, it is clear that sexuality was involved in Mary’s pregnancy.
Brown Ogwuma says something on this as well:
“It seems that, like the adult human male, the Holy Spirit who fathered Jesus is also more sexually attracted to younger females than older ones. And for 90 years old Joseph having other children with Mary, who was so young as to be his grand-daughter, he must have been a busy old man, who apparently was endowed with sexual prowess.” [21]
We can all agree with the evidence presented that Mary’s pregnancy involved sexual intimacy with the Holy Spirit. This was not me, but your own Christians sources who are admitting such blasphemous thing that God had sexual intimacy with Mary for Jesus to be born.

7. Age of Consent in European & American History
Early marriages in American States and European countries prior the 20th century, here is an article I have written:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

8. Questions for the Hate-Mongering Christians
1. Why was Mary pregnant at such young age by the Holy Spirit?
2. Why did Jesus not speak against (or abolish) them Child marriages?
3. How come Paul says nothing against such marriages?
4. Why did Yahweh not say anything against Mary’s marriage with Joseph?
5. Why did Yahweh bless the marriage of Joseph who was 80 – 90 years old at least with 12 year old Mary?

Conclusion:
 I believe everything presented in this article supports the fact that Mary married Joseph the carpenter when she was 12 years old and Joseph at least 80 – 90 years old. I went over and defined the word ‘Apocrypha’ as you have read already it originally denoted ‘Hidden or secret’. Finally, I gave a reference from the Gospel of Matthew that said after Jesus birth Joseph and Mary had normal sexual life. Lastly the references quoted from some of the early Church fathers that Mary married Joseph when she was 12 years old, some of them believed even though Mary was married to Joseph, she stayed a Virgin whole her life. Although they have already admitted that Joseph was a very, very old man when married to 12 year old Mary, it does not mean nothing if they believed she stayed a Virgin. Reason is because Gospel of Matthew already made it clear that there was sexual intimacy between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. So whatever the opinion from some of the early fathers, Matthew 1:25 crushes/debunks their fictitious arguments on Mary staying a Virgin whole her life.
Disclaimer: Whatever is given in this article is just showing of the mirror to the Liars/deceivers and other missionary haters of Islam, otherwise neither I nor any Muslim can ever think of anything close to it. Christian brethren and sisters do understand that this article is in no way attacking the Christian faith. The article was mainly written in response to the double standards of Christian missionaries. No Muslim can be a Muslim if he/she has any such imagination about Mary, the purest and greatest woman of all.
References:
[1] The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls By James VanderKam, Peter Flint chapter 8
[2] Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative And Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John By Zlatko Plese page 7
[3] John the Baptist: Prophet of Purity for a New Age By Catherine M. Murphy page 161
[4] The Tree of Life and the Holy Grail: Ancient and Modern Spiritual Paths and the mystery of rennes-le-Chatean By Sylvia Francke page 6
[5] Forgotten Women of God By Diana Webb page xiv
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
[7] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm
[8]The Semitic gods and the Bible. Being over three hundred pages from “The gods and religions of ancient and modern times.” Written while unjustly imprisoned (1912) By D. M. Bennet (De Robigne Mortimer Bennett) Page 605
[9]Bernard L. Fontana A Gift of Angels: The Art of Mission San Xavier Del Bac page 258
[10] A new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament. To which is subjoined A Vindication of the Former Part of St. Matthew’s Gospel from Mr. Whiston’s Charge of Dislocations By Reverend Jeremiah Jones
[11] History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred. By Charles B. Waite. Published 1881 page 131
[12] Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew edited by Charles H. Talbert page 34
[13] Answers to Questions Catholics Are Asking By Tony Coffey page 209 – 210
[14] The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament Volume 1 By Ben Witherington III page 653
[15] Straight to the Heart of Matthew: 60 Bite-Sized Insights By Phil Moore page 24 Footnote 9
[16] The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew Michael J. Wilkins page 82
[17] The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1911) page 74
[18] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Eleventh Edition page 525
[19] Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language . . . (1903) page 85
[20] The Seer edited by Orson Pratt (1853) page 158
[21] Playing God: Intuitive Reflections and Discourse on Life By Brown Ogwuma page 98



Note Down :

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error.

It is up to you to make the next move.
In making your move, Islam continuously reassures you that your rights to freedom of choice ** and freedom to use that God-given faculty of thought and reason will be respected. Every man has that individual will. No one else can take that away that will and force you to surrender to the will of God. You have to find out and make that decision yourself.


The Qur'an says:
["Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]


This article wasn't publish having idea of to harm or carryout bad propaganda to a another faith at all, Simply just to motivate our readers to discover the TRUTH.

May your intellectual journey towards the TRUTH be a pleasant one.

Final Testament

How Did 1 God Become 3?

  1.  ‏‎Final Testament‎‏ من قبل ‏‏‎Anti Islamophobia‎‏‏.
    How Did 1 God Become 3?
    [Excerpts and Quotes From The Catholic Church History.]

    How Did 1(ONE) God Become 3 (THREE)?

    Excerpts and Quotes From The Catholic Church History


    We all know the Bible says 'God is One' and, "Thou shalt not have any 'gods' beside God.

    Yet somehow today Christians are presenting a vast variety of terms and explanations on how God can actually be "One and Three at the same time."

    Some attempt to resolve the issue by saying "Jesus is Lord!" or even "Jesus is God." (May Allah save us from any blasphemy, ameen).

    According to the priests of the Holy Roman Catholic Church there is more to the belief in God than simply saying, "God is One."

    Jews had no problem with the concept of "Unity of God."

    The problem was with the Greeks and other pagans who had become quite used to the notion, that their 'gods' in some way resembled the creation around them.

    Arius, the bishop from Egypt, like many of the early Christians, believed in God as One and Jesus, peace be upon him, as one subservient to God. That is to say, in a lessor position than God.

    This concept is still held today by more than 1.5 billion Muslims, who adhere to the teachings of the Quran and the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

    Simply put, "There is no God worthy of worship, except the One True God. He has no partners."

    This aligns nicely with the belief of the early followers of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon, peace be upon them all.

    In an effort to resolve this issue once and for all, Emperor Constantine ordered the bishops from the different factions to assemble in His land.

    What took place next was to change the way most Christians think of God for many centuries to come.


    To offer the reader the opportunity to read what the Catholic Church claims took place in the year 325 under the direction of the pagan-turned-Christian-emperor Constantine, we have attempted to faithfully reproduce from their own writings, exactly how they view what took place 1,680 years ago during the Council of Nicaea.


    [begin quote]

    Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea
    By Brother John Raymond


    Introduction

    Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius.


    Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world (Ward 1955, 38)."

    The relationship between God and the world had to be solved. The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him (Guitton 1965, 81)."


    The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world (Guitton 1965, 81)."

    The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures (Ward 1955, 39)."

    This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.


    Arius and His Teaching
    Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students.

    Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy (Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."

    With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.


    The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering (Ward 1955, 41)." This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man (Ward 1955, 42)."

    Arius Versus the Alexandrian Bishop
    Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching. Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance. Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy (Ward 1955, 43, 44)."


    With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation. The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.

    Constantine and Ossius


    With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy. The letters failed to have an effect.

    In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea. Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.

    Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome)

    It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia. That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "`was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"

    The Council of Nicaea


    The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.


    If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius (LeClercq 1913, 45)."

    Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted (LeClercq 1967, 792)." But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position. "Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (Davis 1987, 59)." When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled.


    The Creed and an Analysis

    Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

    "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes (LeClercq 1913, 45)."

    The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only. The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61). This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation.


    In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not." The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable." Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.

    Terminology Problem


    With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West. This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position (Davis 1987, 63)."


    A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings. "First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals. Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay (Davis 1987, 61)." The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father. If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy. The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.

    Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies. The word was originally used by the Gnostics. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata. Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture.

    The Council's defeat by Arianism


    It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians. With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea. Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios." Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula (Barry 1913, 709)." Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.


    With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini. Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57). It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.

    The Final Battle


    The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived. First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed. Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups (DeClercq 1967, 793)." Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance. The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons (Ward 1955, 58)." Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same. The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).

    At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology. At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned. Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor.


    In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.


    In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "`the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established (Davis 1987, 126).'" In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church (DeClercq 1967, 793)."

    Conclusion


    The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one. The Arian doctrines condemned were the following: The Son was created by the Father out of nothing. Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and in name only. The Father and Son did not share the same substance. The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.

    Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).

    It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor. The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.


    Works Cited:

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
    Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
    Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

    Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787):
    Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

    Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York:
    Harper and Row.

    Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
    Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
    Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1,
    Arianism, by William Barry.

    Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
    Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
    Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11,
    Councils of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.

    Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R.
    Mowbray and Co. Limited
  2. تمت مشاركة ‏صورة‏ ‏‎You Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free‎‏ من قبل ‏‏‎Anti Islamophobia‎‏‏.
    ► Unlike in Christianity Science and Islam went together. For Example, Galileo Scientifically deduced Earth Orbited the Sun, and was arrested in 1632 on the Pope’s Order for “heretical” sin. Yet 1000 Years before, Ibn Abbas (Ra) deduced fro...مشاهدة المزيد
     — مع ‏‎Jaisal Koyassan‎‏.
  3. تمت م