From Al mahdi Al Muntazer to the Syrian Tyrant: Just leave and Save Your own life

الأسد يحذر من زلزال بالمنطقة

الأسد يتهم الجامعة العربية بتقديم تبرير لتدخل عسكري خارجي (الفرنسية)حذر الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد من زلزال قد يهز منطقة الشرق الأوسط إذا ما تعرضت بلاده لتدخل عسكري من الخارج، متهما جامعة الدول العربية بتبرير التدخل الخارجي، وتعهد بملاحقة معارضيه.
وقال الرئيس السوري في مقابلة مع صحيفة صنداي تايمز البريطانية إن الحل لا يكمن في سحب قواته من المدن، بل بالتخلص من المسلحين الذين يتهمهم بإطلاق النار
واعتبر الأسد تحركات الجامعة العربية ومبادرتها لوقف العنف في بلاده، محاولة عربية لتقديم ذريعة للغرب من أجل التدخل العسكري.
ولكنه حذر من أن عواقب أي تدخل ستنطوي على زلزال يهز منطقة الشرق الأوسط بأسرها.
وقال إن السبيل الوحيد هو "البحث عن المسلحين وملاحقة العصابات المسلحة، ومنع دخول الأسلحة من الدول المجاورة، ومنع التخريب، وفرض النظام والقانون".
وأشار إلى أن الصراع سيستمر، شأنه في ذلك شأن الضغط على سوريا، ولكنه قال "أطمئنكم بأن سوريا لن تخضع وستمضي في مقاومة الضغوط التي تواجهها".

استمرار ممارسات النظام السوري رغم انتهاء المهلة العربية (الجزيرة)أخطاءوعن مدى قناعته بأن قواته الأمنية كانت عدائية تجاه المحتجين السلميين، واعتقلت الآلاف، أقر الأسد بوقوع أخطاء، ولكنه أكد أنها أخطاء فردية وليست مسؤولية الدولة.
وقال "نحن كدولة، لا نتبنى سياسة القسوة مع المواطنين"، مشيرا إلى أن الجنود الذين أطقلوا النار على المتظاهرين السلميين اعتقلوا في المدن التي ورد فيها أسوأ الفظائع.
لكن الأسد زعم أن المعارضة بالغت في أعداد القتلى، وقال إن بعض الضحايا الذين أعلن عنهم اتضح لاحقا أنهم أحياء.
ونفى أن يكون عدد القتلى قد وصل إلى 3500، مؤكدا أن عددهم لا يتجاوز 619 وينقسمون إلى ثلاث فئات: محتجون قتلوا أثناء تبادل النار بين قوات الأمن و"العصابات المسلحة"، وضحايا القتل الطائفي وأخيرا المؤيدون للنظام الذين قتلوا بسبب دفاعهم عن قضية الحكومة، حسب تعبيره.
ويشير الرئيس السوري إلى أن 800 قتلوا من قواته الأمنية، بعضهم على أيدي إسلاميين، والبعض الآخر من قبل منشقين عن الجيش.

الأسد يقول إن 800 من قواته الأمنية قتلوا على أيدي إسلاميين ومنشقين عن الجيش(الفرنسية)إصلاحاتوفي ما يتعلق بمطالب المحتجين، قال الأسد إنه بدأ بالفعل بإجراء إصلاحات بعد مرور ستة أيام على بداية الاحتجاجات في سوريا، "غير أن بعض المعارضين ردوا عليها بحمل السلاح".
وأضاف "بعد مرور نحو ثمانية أشهر، اتضحت الصورة، فالأمر لا يتعلق بمظاهرات سلمية بقدر ما هي عملية مسلحة".
وقال إن حكومته ماضية في إجراء انتخابات في فبراير/شباط المقبل أو الشهر الذي يليه، مؤكدا أنه سيكون هناك برلمان جديد وحكومة جديدة ودستور جديد يحدد انتخاب الرئيس.
ولدى سؤاله عن مدى استعداده للقتال من أجل منصب الرئاسة، أجاب "بالتأكيد لا، فأنا سأقاتل من أجل سوريا وشعبها".
تعليقات القراء
التعليقات المنشورة لا تعبر عن رأي الجزيرة وإنما تعبر عن رأي أصحابها
119
سمير قدري
حلب
اعلان حرب على الشعب..زعم القذافي ان يسحن ويقتل من وصفهم بالاسلاميين, وهم الشعب الليبي وانه سينقل الحرب الى قلب اوروبا أين ذهب , فرعون قال لأقتلنكم ولأصلبنكم ثم ماذا ؟ والدور على الدكتور, كيف تعلن الحرب على الشعب؟غ عيشتنا في نظام بوليسي ورعب والان تهدد بالارض المحروقة..يلا ارحل يابشار
118
عبدالرؤوف التونسي
تونس
نصيحة لبشار!!! ألم يبدأ القذافي بالتهديد؟ ألم يهدد كامل المنطقة بما فيها أوروبا؟ ألم يقل أنه صمام الأمان لكامل المنطقة؟ أين هو وأين نظامه؟ إرحل وحاول أن تحفظ ماء الوجه ولا تتفرعن وإلا فإن العاقبة ستكون وخيمة لك ولكل من حولك. وقد أعذر من أنذر!!!
117
حماقة العرب
فرنسا
عندما درست التاريخ صغيراً وخاصة الثورة العربيه الكبرى قلت في نفسي يا لحماقة أجدادنا. واليوم أرى التاريخ يعيد نفسه وأنا أقول يا لحماقة أعز أصدقائي. اللهم إنا نسألك فرجاً قريباً لأهلنا في الشام. ونصراً على كل من أرادهم بسؤ.
116
محمد حسين
اليمن
بدون زلزال ولا براكين يكفيك ما حكمت انت وعائلتك وابحث لك عن بلاد تلجأ اليها كروسيا او الصين او ايران واترك الشعب السوري يختار من يشاء فسوريا ليست ملك لبني الاسد ولا انت وصي على السوريين ويا ليت تأخذ معك السفاح اليمني وابناؤه وتريحونا من طغيانكم وجرائمكم
115
كرم الحسين
سوريا - حماة / الى الرقم
اخي الكريم نحن في سوريا مستعدون لأن نفنا جميعا من اجل تحرير اراضينا المحتلة الجولان وفلسطين كاملة لكن ان هاجمنا اسرائيل بدون مضاد للسلاح النووي الذي نفتقده حتى الأن وهزمناها وحررنا اراضينا واستشهدنا جميعا فهناك شيء يحزنا هو اننا قاتلنا وناضلنا شعبا وقيادة من اجل ان نعيش لنرى تلك الساعة لا ان نقطف ثمار النصر ويأكله غيرنا نريد ان نصلي نحن في الجامع الأقصى لا حكام الخليج نريد نحن ان نرفع علم النصر فوق كل اراضي محررة اخي الكريم اعذرنا على غرورنا في امنيتنا الكبيرة وهي /العيش في لذة النصر /
114
كرم الحسين
سوريا - حماة / الى الرقم
اخي الكريم سؤالك جميل جدا وواقعي وهو مطروح جدا هذه الأيام وجوابه ببساطة كالتالي ان هاجمت سوريا الأن اسرائيل لأستعادة فلسطين فأسرائيل وحلفائها سيتخدمون كل قوتهم لأيقاف جيشنا الزاحف نحو تل ابيب ولا اظن ان السلاح النووي سيكون بعيدا عن احتمالاتهم ويكفي سوريا اخي الكريم ثلاثة صواريخ نووية لتحويلها الى ركام ولا تقول لي ان اسرائيل لا تفعلها لأنها دولة تملك انسانية او انها تخاف من المجتمع الدولي اخي الكريم هم بأمتلاكهم للسلاح النووي خلقوا رادعا ونحن بصواريخنا خلقنا ردع والخسارة الأن لمن يصرخ اخ اولا
113
مراقب معتدل
نهاية مظلمة للظالم وتبقى الشعوب لتعيد الكرامة
كلامه هو هذيان لمجرم صفيق انحشر في الزاوية ولا يملك سوى اطلاق تهديدات فارغة، لم يعد أمام هذا النظام سوى الهزيمة، ليبيا وسورية واليمن، لم يقدم أي ديكتاتور فيهم أي تنازلات لأن ذلك يعني انهيار حكمهم وبالتالي هم يفضلون خراب المعبد بما فيه على رؤوسهم ورؤوس شعوبهم، ولكن خراب المعبد في ليبيا جاء رأس القذافي والشعب الليبي سوف يعيد البناء ونفس الشيء سيكون في سورية واليمن.
112
محمد بكور محمد l
poland
إجابة على التعليق رم84 يا عزيزي هل تريد أن تكون سورية ذي مصر دي الوقت مثل ما حصل اليوم في القاهرة وشكرا
111
phobia4300
اما احكمكم أو اقتلكم
عندما كانت الطائرات الاسرائليه تحلق فوق قصره وعندما ضربوا ماقالوا انه مفاعل نووي لم يتفوه اويهدد بزلزاله الذي يتحدث عنه لانعرف ياسيادةالرئيس هذا الزالزال كيف يكون فلقدأصبح الناس خائفين على مصائرهم وعائلاتهم هل لديك أسلحه أكثر فتكا بالبشر من النووي أم هي خردةالروس التي لاتصلح الا لقتل المدنين والتي بعضها تاكل من الصدأ,لقد سبقك صاحب بندقية جده وابنه صاحب اخر رصاصه فلم تستخدم بندقية الجد ولم تطلق اخر رصاصه وأنما كانوا يرتجفون كالاطفال لقد اصبحت الانظمه الكرتونيه لاتخيف أحد وتمزقت واحد تلو الاخر
110
هام
أين هذا الزلزال من طائرات اسرائيل حينما قصفت مفاعلات في أقصى البلاد
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>

Blogger comment:
To Bashar the tyrant you are calculating very badly like Saddam did before and Qaddafi. You are really a bother to Israel and America since you are one of very few allies of Iran regime and not their people but you are feeling strong by Iran. The Gulf states who I despise their leaders, the west and Israel have common interest not to have nuclear weapons in Iran. It is much easier for them to attack you than Iran since the the Arab street will support such move. It will be a good way to contain Iran for them by toppling you down, Iran will not interfere since it would have get in military confrontation with the west which they will not do it unless they are themselves attacked. Thus it looks from the interest of most of big players to take you out. I do not like blood shed and I advise you to step down now. Iran regime and not the Iranian have proved so far like we say in the Egyptian proverb a food bolus in our throat. They did not help us in revolutions and did stand against Muslims, though a lot of Muslims sympathized with them against crazy Saddam particularly me and were happy to see them liberated in Iraq. But I do not think they share us this love. Israel is much more predictable and transparent than Iran. They will lie to the Palestinian like Saddam did we will stand with you and they actually care more about their political gain and making people convert to Shia than standing with us, uniting with us and even reconsidering their sect which really is deviated from Islam. When God praise the prophet and his wives and his friends we have to praise them and elevate them. Besides the people who wrote many of their doctrines had no prof that they are inspired by God. Sunni are very careful to believe only in what inspired to the prophet from Quran and true Hadith. The collector of the true Hadith were travelling all over the earth to meet people who narrated Hadith to be sure they are right. Otherwise everyone can invent his own religion. It is what is truly revealed that we follow. Iran and Shia have to let us know in what they really believe in and what is their inner feelings about Muslims Sunni. I know they have this Taqia which basically says to hide the truth, what should we believe about you ???.

Last call to the Iranians tell Iran president to step down, no nuclear weapons in Iran, if you wipe Israel America and Israel will wipe you. Besides nuclear weapons will be spread in the area. Israel will use it only if they felt they will be massively destroyed they did not use it in the war with Hazeb Allah. I am not all for Israel I take it policy by policy. But in large part achieving long lasting peace with them is very possible Sadat did it before and both kept it. Thus in large part the Iranians and not the Iranian people are not helping us in our revolutions. If you want to do so please tell Bashar to go away.

It is highly likely the West, Turkey, Gulf states will attack Syria. China and Russia may not like it but they at least told Bashar many times to change and he did not. There will not be earthquake or world war three as Bashar hope China and Russia are not crazy like the Arab tyrants. It is very likely that the Iranian people will stand with the west and Arabs, while if they to attack Iran they are very likely will unite their people around their leadership a thing that the west, Israel and the Gulf tyrants will not like to see.

Al Mahdi Al Muntazer

Qatar is Playing all of US including the west and USA

الرئيسية » شئون عربية وإسلامية
بالصور..غياب سوريا عن اجتماع وزراء الخارجية العرب في الرباط
الخميس, 17 نوفمبر 2011 - 11:00 am عدد الزيارات: 57
Tweet
قرر وزراء الخارجية العرب منح "مهلة أخيرة" للحكومة السورية، قبل المضي بتعليق عضوية سوريا في جامعة الدول العربية، على أن يتم إرسال مراقبين إلى الدولة العربية التي تشهد اضطرابات دامية، في غضون ثلاثة أيام، إذا ما أعلنت دمشق موافقتها على خطة العمل العربية.

Blogger comment:
Gasam and his prince of Qatar have been playing very smart role in last few years for their interest. I would tell you how they do it:
1- In private they are very friendly to America and Israel, I have no problem.
2- They have troops to America in their country.
3- they are very close with the tyrant of Saudi and other gulf countries.
4- They are standing strongly to Al Mahdi Al Muntazer ask them why they did not mention my name all these years and not allowing me to speak to the media through Al Jazzera.
5- They are getting Al Jazzera under their control which is to stand with the Gulf and when a revolution start to win they support it so Al Jazzera continue the media channel to the Arab world so Qatar continue in lead and protect its interests of Prince and Gassam. Thus it does not allow other news channels to take over.
6- They have conference of Islamic scholars with their guy Qardawi who is residing in Qatar stand with the revolutions when it comes in and meanwhile try to have him protect the gulf tyrants. Remember he did not start the revolution but us and then he showed up in the right time. If he really want to stand with Al Mahdi he should abandon the gulf countries.

Look at the fu--king great decision of Gassam and his Arab tyrants assembly. They are firing Syria from their assembly. Fu-- this Assembly the tyrant of Syria is ruthlessly killing his people. They are in Assembly the good boys who would not sit down with him in their fu--king next tea party.

Poverty in Middle East can be cut drastically with long lasting peace in the Middle East

ربع الإسرائيليين تحت خط الفقر

إسرائيل شهدت قبل شهور مظاهرات ضد غلاء السكن وتزايد الفوارق(الفرنسية-أرشيف)
كشفت إحصاءات سنوية للمعهد الوطني للتأمين بإسرائيل أن واحد من أربعة إسرائيليين يعيش تحت خط الفقر في العام 2010، وتقل هذه النسبة عن المستوى المسجل في العام 2009، وأوضح تقرير للمعهد نشر أمس أن 1.77 مليون إسرائيلي هم في عداد الفقراء، أي 24.4% من سكان إسرائيل، ويشكل الأطفال نسبة كبيرة من الفقراء، إذ يصل عددهم إلى 837 ألفا.

وكانت نسبة الفقراء في العام 2009 أعلى قليلا من السنة الماضية، حيث شكلوا 25% من إجمالي السكان، وبلغت نسبة الفقر لدى الأطفال 36.3% في 2009 ثم انخفضت قليلا إلى 35.3% في 2010.

وتعيش نسبة 19.8% من الأسر الإسرائيلية تحت عتبة الفقر، أي نحو 433 ألف أسرة مقارنة بنسبة 20.5% المسجلة في 2009.

وعزا التقرير التراجع النسبي لمعدلات الفقر العام الماضي إلى انخفاض معدل البطالة وانتعاش سوق الشغل بعد تراجع في السنوات الماضية نتيجة الأزمة الاقتصادية العالمية.

"اليهود الأرثوذكس المتطرفون وعرب الداخل أكثر الفئات التي ينتشر فيها الفقر بإسرائيل، إذ تعيش أسرة من كل أسرتين في هاتين الفئتين تحت خط الفقر"الأكثر فقرا
وبين فئات المجتمع الإسرائيلي يعد اليهود الأرثوذكس المتطرفون وعرب الداخل أكثر الفئات التي ينتشر فيها الفقر، وتشكل الفئتان نسبة 20% من إجمالي سكان إسرائيل البالغ عددهم 7.8 ملايين نسمة.

وتعيش أسرة واحدة من كل أسرتين تنتميان للفئتين المذكورتين تحت عتبة الفقر، وتتكون أسر اليهود الأرثوذكس والعرب من عدد كبير من الأفراد.

وقال وزير الشؤون الاجتماعية موشي كاهلون أثناء تقديم تقرير المعهد الإسرائيلي إن تراجع أرقام الفقر بشكل طفيف لا يخفى الصورة السوداوية للفقر بالبلاد، مضيفا أن خمس الأسر وثلث الأطفال فقراء و"لهذا أدعو الحكومة للتدخل بقوة لمواجهة الفقر والحد منه"، على حد قوله.

أعلى المعدلات
يشار إلى أن إسرائيل هي أعلى بلدان منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية من حيث معدلات الفقر، وقد التحقت تل أبيب بهذا التكتل الاقتصادي في سبتمبر/أيلول 2010 وهو يضم 33 دولة غنية في العالم.

كما توجد بإسرائيل أعلى نسبة فوارق في مستويات الدخل بين الأغنياء والفقراء في دول المنظمة المذكورة، وذلك إلى جانب الولايات المتحدة والمكسيك وتشيلي.

جدير بالذكر أن مدنا إسرائيلية عديدة شهدت قبل أشهر مظاهرات ضد حكومة بنيامين نتنياهو بسبب غلاء أسعار المساكن وتزايد هوة الفوارق بين طبقات المجتمع.

What should Occupy Wall Street's next move be?

What should Occupy Wall Street's next move be?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As Occupy Wall Street marks two months of protests, there are questions about exactly what the activists want and more importantly, how they plan to get it.
Patience is wearing thin in cities around the country as officials begin to move against the demonstrators in places such as New York; Oakland and Berkeley, California; Portland, Oregon; and Salt Lake City.
While getting an "A" for perseverance, the occupiers' tent cities are starting to get on people's nerves, which is part of the idea. But some of the tent cities have spawned drugs, crime and violence, things that are not conducive to generating sympathy for their cause.
And speaking of their cause, what exactly is it? With the protesters so widely dispersed, you have to wonder how focused and concentrated their message is. After two months, a lot of us remain unsure of what exactly the message is. More is needed than a vague complaint against corporate greed if they are to remain relevant.
That brings us to something else the movement has been lacking so far: Leaders. Putting a head on this group would perhaps allow them to crystallize their message a little more.
Finally you could make a very strong argument that the major source of our country's problems is Washington. So why are these folks content to wander around places such as New York, Denver, Seattle, Oakland and other places outside the real scene of the crimes.
If you want to fight a fire, you have to go to where the fire is.
Here’s my question to you: What should Occupy Wall Street's next move be?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Blogger comment:
Both parties will try to hijack the movement now to benefit itself from the next elections. Though the message was mainly that about how the poor paid the rich in wall street take over our money. It should not stop short of writing down our main concerns about our future in America and the future of the world in general. Many of the public including me do not trust a multi-millionaire politician to look after us. That is why our revolt should be against all the politicians. As regular guys many of them are nice and dissent but they are surly not working for us. They working for the interest group and rich mainly. In the time left they fight between themselves. We should not use any violence we are not dealing with the dictators of the Middle East we are working against politicians that did not lift us but let us drown. Thus the movement has to do the following:
1- Stay strong and united, angry but not violent. As we know Americans they stand with the underdog if you become violent you loose and if they become violent they loose.
2- It is not about only fixing the wall street and banking system but about many of our grave problems. Including the health care of uninsured, the absence of good health plan and retirement plan to all Americans.
3- like Jack mentioned the right place to go is Washington. I agree with that but you have to show up in all the states.
4- You need to make leaders among yourselves and you have to believe you still the leaders since you will ask them what to do. You will not give a ride again to Obama and then he dump you after he got in his glorious White House.
5- Make it simple we need to achieve 1 to 6 points and we are not letting politicians brush us off that they will do that in next election.
6- It is very likely it will get confrontational but not violent. They will ask you to go home but you will live poor and die poor if you do that and forget about your future. Stay longer and try to get more of the corporate media to get into your side. They call it the attraction force of the winners. If people found out you are on the message and you are growing, clear and united and make a lot of sense they will feel you are winning and stand with you. Do you remember how USA was reluctant to stand with the Arab revolutions and when America felt the people are determined and going to win they stood with them.
7- I have inspired the Arab revolutions and people followed me and won. I do not care if people see me or not my aim is to get the oppressed and poor to stand up and change his destiny. I could be a man or non-human I could be just an Idea. You can not kill an idea.

Thursday November 17th The International Day of Action

From:http://occupywallst.org/action/november-17th/

Call To Action! Facebook Event Twitter #N17 Direct Action Resources
On Thursday November 17th, the two month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, we call upon the 99% to participate in a national day of direct action and celebration!
New York City
BREAKFAST: Shut Down Wall Street - 7:00 a.m.
Enough of this economy that exploits and divides us. It's time we put an end to Wall Street's reign of terror and begin building an economy that works for all. We will gather in Liberty Square at 7:00 a.m., before the ring of the Trading Floor Bell, to prepare to confront Wall Street with the stories of people on the frontlines of economic injustice. There, before the Stock Exchange, we will exchange stories rather than stocks.
LUNCH: Occupy The Subways - 3:00 p.m.
We will start by Occupying Our Blocks! Then throughout the five boroughs, we will gather at 16 central subway hubs and take our own stories to the trains, using the "People's Mic".
Bronx
Fordham Rd
3rd Ave, 138th Street
163rd and Southern Blvd
161st and River - Yankee Stadium
Brooklyn
Broadway Junction
Borough Hall
301 Grove Street
St Jose Patron Church,185 Suydam St, Bushwick
Queens
Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave.
Jamaica Center/Parsons/Archer
92-10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights
Manhattan
125th St. A,B,C,D
Union Sq. (Mass student strike)
23rd St and 8th Ave
Staten Island
St. George, Staten Island Ferry Terminal
479 Port Richmond Avenue, Port Richmond
DINNER: Take The Square - 5:00 p.m.
At 5 pm, tens of thousands of people will gather at Foley Square (just across from City Hall) in solidarity with laborers demanding jobs to rebuild this country's infrastructure and economy. A gospel choir and a marching band will also be performing.
Afterwards we will march to our bridges. Let's make it as musical a march as possible - bring your songs, your voice, your spirit! Our "Musical" on the bridge will culminate in a festival of light as we mark the two-month anniversary of the #occupy movement, and our commitment to shining light into our broken economic and political system.
Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy.
Portland
Occupying steelbridge in morning
Rally afterwards
Subsequently occupying banks
International Actions
Spain
General Strike
A general strike of university students will be taking place in the following cities: Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, Tarragona, Palma, Sevilla, Santiago de Compostela, Murcia, Madrid, Valencia, Castello, Alicante, Zaragoza
17:00: Demonstration in Madrid
Place: From Nuevos Ministerios to Puerta del Sol SquareCall: Assembly UAM-CSIC / 15Mhttp://tomalafacultad.nethttp://madrid.tomalaplaza.net/2011/11/08/17n-manifestacion-estatal-por-los-servicios-publicos/
Belgium
Occupy University and School
Germany
Massive student strikes, flash mobs, rallies, and other actions will be taking place in dozens of cities: http://ism-global.net/germany_education_strike_nov17
Posters
High-quality, print-ready versions (11x17, 15x24, 23x36) are available as a freely downloadable .zip file.
Let's get these posters everywhere! The artist's only stipulation is that they cannot be sold, only given away.
Props to r.black for his amazing work!
this site was brought to you by various radicalsthis website is free / open source software on githubemail: general@occupywallst.org help line: +1 (516) 708-4777

To the Great American Police: Let them Just Occupy

By Maged Taman

No doubt the best Americans are the Marines/Army/Navey--- Police and Firemen those are the people who sacrifice their lives for other Americans including corrupt politicians and CEO's. They earn in average 60000 dollars a year or less. Which in America you can barely make it.

It is quite likely the occupy wall street mass movement will lead to big changes in this country which will be positive to all of us including the police. Thus our call to the American police is to let them in they will not use violence or burn things they will occupy and stay and when America will see your greatness in let them in more people will join and millions of Americans will occupy everywhere and they can even paralyse the government. At this point they can put their demands on politicians and demand new change in this country. I will help myself by Taman Health Plan.

Waiting for Obama to change things you will be dreaming or Bush like guy say bey-bey to your freedom. Do not forget how Bush used war on terror to get his rich oil guys and Saudi asshole king to benefit by getting you involved in Iraq dump war.

It is time now for real democracy and new politicians that are not hired by the corporations including the corporate media.

God Bless the American Revolution,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ikQQk8cJQ&NR=1

Remember, Remember the 17th of November

From: http://occupywallst.org/action/november-17th/

November 17thNational Day of Action
Facebook Event Twitter #N17 Direct Action Resources

On Thursday November 17th, the two month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, we call upon the 99% to participate in a national day of direct action and celebration!
New York City Schedule
SHUT DOWN WALL STREET - 7:00 a.m.
Enough of this economy that exploits and divides us. It's time we put an end to Wall Street's reign of terror and begin building an economy that works for all. We will gather in Liberty Square at 7:00 a.m., before the ring of the Trading Floor Bell, to prepare to confront Wall Street with the stories of people on the frontlines of economic injustice. There, before the Stock Exchange, we will exchange stories rather than stocks.
OCCUPY THE SUBWAYS - 3:00 p.m.
We will start by Occupying Our Blocks! Then throughout the five boroughs, we will gather at 16 central subway hubs and take our own stories to the trains, using the "People's Mic".
Bronx
Fordham Rd
3rd Ave, 138th Street
163rd and Southern Blvd
161st and River - Yankee Stadium
Brooklyn
Broadway Junction
Borough Hall
301 Grove Street
St Jose Patron Church,185 Suydam St, Bushwick
Queens
Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave.
Jamaica Center/Parsons/Archer
92-10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights
Manhattan
125th St. A,B,C,D
Union Sq. (Mass student strike)
23rd St and 8th Ave
Staten Island
St. George, Staten Island Ferry Terminal
479 Port Richmond Avenue, Port Richmond
TAKE THE SQUARE - 5:00 p.m.
At 5 pm, tens of thousands of people will gather at Foley Square (just across from City Hall) in solidarity with laborers demanding jobs to rebuild this country's infrastructure and economy. A gospel choir and a marching band will also be performing.
Afterwards we will march to our bridges. Let's make it as musical a march as possible - bring your songs, your voice, your spirit! Our "Musical" on the bridge will culminate in a festival of light as we mark the two-month anniversary of the #occupy movement, and our commitment to shining light into our broken economic and political system.
Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy.
this site was brought to you by various radicalsthis website is free / open source software on githubemail: general@occupywallst.org help line: +1 (516) 708-4777
Notifications

Blogger comment:
Where is the corporate media here and where are the heroes of Hollywood why they do not step down from the big and small screens to the real world and stand with the ordinary Americans. May be there is no glamour over there just burnt out people in no shinning cars with no champagne bottles behind them. Some of them remind me of the artists in Egypt who sided with Mubarak and after his fall their people despised them and boycotted them. The media showing us no real hero to stand with the protesters while Obama the man of change is ordering the police to arrest them. That is why the world wide revolution is unavoidable. people lost faith in their leaders, their clergy except the Pop and few in most religions and lost faith also in their public figures. For most Americans as our wealth is evaporating if we do not change the system we will live the rest of our lives poor and die poor we will be working until the last days of our lives. See Taman Health Plan and compare the sytem now and if we to change. it.http://books.google.com/books?id=FzJ3NtHcpFYC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=taman+health+plan&source=bl&ots=yd4yb2T1wM&sig=PFkWwE8dhWV4UnRYOnsF8wUJqWI&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

If I was a greedy guy I could have sold it for millions of dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzjrIk05YyU&feature=related

From Al mahdi Al Muntazer to the great Syrian people: Let Bashar go

"رفعت الاسد": سلامة "بشار" أولاً ليستقيل ويسلم السلطة
الإثنين, 14 نوفمبر 2011 - 01:17 pm عدد الزيارات: 7
Tweet1
رفعت الاسد
دعا رفعت الأسد عم الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد والشقيق الأصغر للرئيس السوري الراحل حافظ الأسد، وكان نائبا له واعتبر لفترة طويلة خليفته المحتمل قبل أن يقوم بمحاولة انقلابية فاشلة انتقل على إثرها للاقامة في المنفى في 1984 متنقلا بين باريس ولندن. إلى تشكيل تحالف عربي- دولي يتفاوض مع ابن شقيقه على صفقة يتنحى بموجبها الأخير عن الحكم مقابل حصوله على ضمانات له ولاقاربه، وتولي السلطة لعمه أي هو شخصيا أو "أحد أفراد العائلة". وقال رفعت الأسد ،الذي يقيم في المنفى منذ 1984 في مقابلة مشتركة مع وكالة فرانس برس وصحيفة لوموند في باريس: إن "الحل يكمن في أن تضمن الدول العربية (لبشار الأسد) سلامته كي يتمكن من الاستقالة وتسليم السلطة لشخص لديه دعم مالي ويؤمن استمرارية جماعة بشار بعد استقالته، يجب أن يكون شخصا من عائلته.. أنا أو سواي". وبحسب رفعت الأسد فإن "النظام (السوري) مستعد للرحيل ولكنه يريد ضمانات ليس فقط لأعضائه بل أيضا ضمانات بألا تندلع بعد رحيله حرب أهلية" بين الأقلية العلوية الحاكمة والأكثرية السنية. تم تشكيل حركة معارضة سورية جديدة برئاسة رفعت الأسد أطلق عليها اسم "المجلس الوطني الديمقراطي"، تضم بشكل رئيسي مسئولين في حزبه "التجمع القومي الديمقراطي الموحد" وقيادات سابقة في حزب البعث. ورفعت الأسد هو الشقيق الأصغر للرئيس السوري الراحل حافظ الأسد وكان نائبا له واعتبر لفترة طويلة خليفته المحتمل قبل أن يقوم بمحاولة انقلابية فاشلة انتقل على إثرها للإقامة في المنفى في 1984 متنقلا بين باريس ولندن.

Blogger comment:
To the Syrian heroes who are fighting Bashar let him go, not to save his life but the children he kills. He is very likely will be punished very well by God anyway. I appealed to the west, Iran, China and Russia no one is helping here. The efforts of the Arab tyrants are limited and Turkey has its problems. Let him get safely away and his family and accept the deal and let us move to a new free Syria. If he does not accept a deal get very strong, very united and very determined and you can even write in my blog and have me lead with you against Bashar the final victory to his destiny.

Al Mahdi Al Muntazer

Anonymous said... i find that the muslim sect has put a riff in our family. my daughter doesn't believe what she was taught in her church. is it right

By: Maged Taman

It is amazing how we still get angry about the conversion from Christianity to Islam and the vice verse. Though we are in age were people minds are more opened to explore other religions and traditionally both religions have in them the call for the free human mind and spirit to recognize its creator and connect to him.

We are still Muslims and Christians feel angry if one of us convert to the other religion. Sometime it is for us more than a faith it is our family, memories and part of our upbringing. Thus when one convert out of his religion his family look at that as he brought to himself hellfire, he separated himself from his family and not only turning away from his people but also a betraying them. So what can we say to ease things to both people who convert from Islam or Christianity to one another:

1- We are at the end of times and we will be converting all on the religion that Jesus will follow after his descent. He will be coming with glory and we will see him with angels coming from heaven no more disputes what ever he tell us we will follow.
2- After Jesus descent we will be all one religion and our animosity in large part will go away.
3- When A non-Muslim convert to Islam, the relation even with her non-Muslim family in large part get stronger since as new Muslims God asked her to be the best to her parents. Not uncommonly the family explore the new convert religion thoroughly and that make them convert to Islam. Muhammad himself was the first convert to Islam it took him some time to believe that the angel who was bringing him the revelation is a reality and not a delusion or satanic being.
4- Muslims in a process of continuous conversion everyday you are Muslim but as you read more in the Quran every verses you read more give you more confirmation that the Quran is the book of God.

Thus Islam is not a sect but the true religion of God and the continuation of the Bible and even correct to the Bible what was misunderstood or was a change from its original words. Thus in order to save your daughter who is becoming Muslim read the Quran in my blog try to dispute it or read it sincerely and let it lead you to what it will lead you to. After that with sincere heart and clear mind tell her what you think about her conversion.

No doubt that the people who followed Christ early broke the hearts of their families and the same was with Muhammad in both cases many of the families of the converts followed the converts to their new religion. In few years Jesus will descend and no more disputes and Muslims as well Christins will unite in one religion with the Jews, too good to be true but was promised to us all in the three religions. The wolf keeps calling the lamb to come down for cup of tea but the later believes it will happen only after Jesus descent so he is turning his cell phone off and does not answer the messages.

The Doctrine of the TRINITY...

From: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

The Doctrine of the TRINITY...
Mystery or Confusion?
A Reverent Examination, by Christians, for Christians
"There is but One God, the Father."1 Corinthians 8:6

All who consider the issue agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible. Its most ardent proponents suppose this to be a strength -- that as we cannot comprehend the majesty and glory of the infinite Creator, so we cannot fathom his nature and being. Not so. The Creator has explicitly revealed himself through His Word as a mighty, unitary being, the great first cause of all things, having no equal, no predecessor and no successor. He is Jehovah by name, and God by title.
For 4000 years those who worshipped Him and trusted Him had no hint, no surmise, no suggestion that he was other than the single, unitary God He declared Himself to be. "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is One" (Deut. 6:4). "Know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD" (Isaiah 43:10, 11).
Christ — The Long Awaited Messiah!
The Jews were aware that God would send a Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek) -- one anointed by God as his prophet, his servant. Moses told them "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken"(Deuteronomy 18:15). Isaiah said "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him" (Isaiah 42:1).
These prophecies — and many more like them — consistently describe Messiah as a highly honored subordinate of God Almighty. Jesus was that promised Messiah. He was no ordinary messenger.He was in fact the very son of God, so termed 47 times in the New Testament. Jesus performed every duty faithfully, and has now been exalted to the "right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews1:3). "God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows" (Hebrews1:9). Jesus, always an obedient son to his Heavenly Father, now exalted above all others, is still a devoted son and subordinate of the Heavenly Father.
He does not assume his honor, glory or service on his own. On the contrary, he receives them all at the hand of his Father and superior, God himself. "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God ... So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son" (Hebrews 5:4, 5). "The Son of man came ... to the Ancient of days... and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" (Daniel 7:13, 14).
What is the Trinity?
It is a doctrine formulated in the 4th century to describe the view of some leading churchmen concerning the nature and relationship of God, Jesus and the holy Spirit. It was enunciated in a series of creeds: The Nicene Creed (325 ad), The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 ad), and the Athanasian Creed (ca. 5th century ad). It took various forms and used multitudes of words so complex and enigmatic it is incomprehensible. Some Christians consider "trinity" simply to imply belief in God, Jesus and the holy Spirit — a broad platform all Christians can endorse. Differently, but still quite simply, the first use of this word in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.
The Scriptural truth, on the other hand, is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible: God is one person, his son Jesus is a second person, and the holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the spirit, power and influence of God. Jesus is subordinate to his Heavenly Father. God existed from eternity,but there was a time before the creation of his son Jesus when God was alone. However, let us examine four essential components of the trinitarian view, closely, against the scriptures.
(1) Who is God?
It is customary in trinitarian language to speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are assumed to be proper titles, and used extensively. Yet in the Scriptures only one of these appears, "God the Father," and that not as a title, but an expression denoting that God is the Father. "There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). The term appears 11 times in the New Testament. By contrast, the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" appear zero times.
The word "God" appears about 1200 times in the New Testament. Nearly all of these refer — no surprise — to God himself. Not even one time does this word refer to the holy Spirit. However, as a word, "god" has a variety of applications. For example the Old Testament Hebrew word "elohim" (god) can describe any high dignitary (e.g. Abraham, Genesis 23:6). In the King James translation it is rendered variously: angels, God, gods, great, mighty, judges. Its Greek counterpart "theos" likewise has a broad usage. Strong's Concordance defines it as: "a deity,especially ... the supreme Divinity; fig. a magistrate." If this word can describe a magistrate, then it can certainly describe Jesus, and it is so used six times in the New Testament (John 1:1, 18, 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1). It is used in John 10:35 of the worshippers of Jehovah. Once it even refers to Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4).
None of these uses should confuse us about who is really the one and only supreme God of the universe, the one both Jews and Christians naturally and freely term "God" — Jehovah, the Almighty God of all. However two texts, frequently cited in support of the trinity, deserve special attention:John 1:1 (discussed separately later), and John 20:28. The latter text records the startled exclamation of praise and adoration by Thomas on seeing the resurrected Christ: "My Lord and my God." Does this mean Christ was verily great Jehovah Himself? Of course not. These (god, magistrate) is the term of great respect, awe and worship Thomas attributed to his Lord and Master. Indeed, in the very same chapter, Jesus explained to Mary Magdalene that he had not yet ascended "unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17). Clearly Jesus recognized almighty God as distinct from, and superior to, himself. God is, as Paul declared, "the Father." No scripture uses the expressions "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit"!
(2) Are Jesus and God Co-Equal?
According to the Scriptures, they clearly are NOT equal. In every case, where God and Jesus are referred to in one context, Jesus is subordinate, and the Father is superior. Here are a handful of the many texts on this issue:
"Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19)"My Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28)"The Head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3)"[Jesus] sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12)"Then shall the Son also himself be subject ... that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28)
Perhaps most telling of all is that Jesus recognizes God as his own God -- his superior, to whom he renders adoration, worship and praise (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, Revelation1:6). No scripture says Jesus is co-equal!
(3) Are Jesus and God Co-Eternal?
In the sense that both will always exist, yes. But that is true of angels and saints and all the obedient.The intent of Co-Eternal is that they always existed eternally from ages past, neither preceding the other. This is not true of Jesus. The Scriptures affirm that Jesus was "the beginning of the Creation of God" (Revelation 3:14), and the "firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15). Therefore he had a beginning. There was a time before that when God was alone. Proverbs 8:22 says of Jesus, "The LORD created me the first of his works long ago, before all else that he made. I was formed in earliest times, at the beginning, before earth itself" (Proverbs 8:22, 23, NRSV). No scripture says Jesus was co-eternal!
(4) Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
Ordinarily there would be no question about this. The holy Spirit of God anointed Jesus at Jordan, who received it not "by measure" (John 3:34). It is "poured out" and "shed" on others (Acts 10:45,Acts 2:17,33, Joel 2:28, Zechariah 12:10). Persons are not "poured," "shed" or "measured," but the spirit, power and influence of God is properly described this way.
The holy Spirit of God is variously described in Scripture as the spirit of Truth, Holiness, Life, Faith, Wisdom, Grace, and Glory. The Scripts also speak of an opposite spirit of Jealousy, Judgment, Burning, Heaviness, Whoredoms, Infirmity, Divination, Bondage, Slumber, Fear, Antichrist and Error. Do we suppose these are persons?
The Scriptures speak of the spirit of Jacob, Elijah, Tiglath-Pilesser, the Philistines, Cyrus, Princes, the Medes, Zerubbabel, and Joshua. Are these spirits all persons?
Why, then, would any suppose the "holy Spirit of God" (Ephesians 4:30) to be a separate being? Actually no one would (and no one did) until the time mysteries and philosophies began to enter Christian dogma. (More of that later.) But today, centuries later, some suppose a support for the personhood of the holy Spirit because of the pronouns used for it in the New Testament. For example, "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ..." (John 16:13). And of the Comforter Jesus said "I will send him unto you" (verse 7). It sounds like a person because of the pronouns "he" and "him."
But a little examination into the Greek explains the issue. When "comforter" is meant the pronoun is masculine, but when "spirit" is intended the pronoun is neuter. Literally it could be translated "it will guide you ..." It is simply a matter of grammar, not of personality. The Greek word for"comforter" is a masculine noun, and that for "spirit" is a neuter noun. Therefore the pronouns necessarily follow the gender of the noun. (Actually the genders in verse 13 are supplied by the Greek verbs rather than by explicit pronouns, but you get the idea.) No scripture says the holy Spirit of God is a person!
John 1:1
The only passage which even comes close to teaching the Trinity is 1 John 5:7, 8. But today it is common knowledge that the essential parts of this passage were not original scripture. The words at issue are an embellishment added to the text by an over-zealous scribe centuries after John died,and no reputable modern version even includes them. For this reason the focus of attention has turned to John 1:1. Clearly this does not teach the Trinity per se, because it does not even mention the holy Spirit, and one cannot have a "trinity" without three parties. But it does say "the Word was God" (King James translation), and this is close enough to one of the pieces of the Trinity to cause interest. What did John mean by this?
There are three popular views:
(1) He meant Jesus really was "God Himself"(2) He meant Jesus was "God-like"(3) He meant Jesus was "a god."
Trinitarians are naturally drawn to the first view. But (other than all we have said above), this view is in danger of proving TOO MUCH — that Jesus and God are the same person. Indeed, many trinitarians assert this without recognizing this is more like the heresy of Sabellius than the orthodox trinity.
The problem becomes apparent when one compares John 1:1 with 1 John 1:2. Both texts are from the same author, about the same time, and express the same thoughts. John 1:1 says the Word was "with God," 1 John 1:2 says the Word was "with the Father." Clearly John intends that "God" was"the Father." Thus if John intends that the Word was "God Himself," he must mean the Word was "the Father" — a conclusion no orthodox trinitarian can embrace. For this reason the majority of translators, including trinitarian translators, do not hold view one!
Thus view 2. "When John said that the Word was God he was not saying that Jesus is identicalwith God; he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being, that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, page 17). In this camp are the following: William Barclay, Martin Vincent, J.P. Lange, Robert Young, BrookFoss Westcott, Kenneth Wuest, George Turner, Julius Mantey, H.E. Dana, Moulton and Moffat.Typical of this view is the REB translation: "The Word was in God's presence, and what God was,the Word was." It is possible that this was John's point. However, View Three actually fits the context still better.As many Bible students are aware, the words "a" and "an" (called indefinite articles) do not exist in the Greek language. If one wished to say "I saw a tree," in Greek it would be "I saw tree" and everyone would know the intent is "a" tree. Therefore a translator would automatically supply it.This is done everywhere in the New Testament where the English word "a" or "an" appears.
So in John 1:1. The text actually says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was [a?] God." Should the translator supply the intended "a" or not? That is the question. Contrary to many vocal claims on this issue, it is a sound and reasonable thing to do. C.H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges "As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 28, Jan. 1977, page 101ff, cited from James Parkinson, "The Herald," Sept-Oct 1966, page 23). Notice that the translators of the King James version had no hesitation in using "a god" in Acts 28:6 where the context makes it obvious. (It also belongs in John 10:33, as the logic of Jesus' reply shows.)
A very good reason for adding "a" in John 1:1 is John 1:18, but the point is hidden in the King James version. Today it is generally acknowledged that the better, earlier Greek manuscripts of this verse refer to Jesus as "the only begotten god" (see the NASB for example). John there says no one has ever seen "God," but "the only begotten god, which is in the bosom of the Father," has appeared to declare what God is about. First it is clear that by "God" John means "the Father." Second it is clear that John has two gods in mind -- God himself, the unseen, and the son of God, Jesus, who in his own right is also a mighty being, "a god." Since John 1:18 distinguishes two mighty beings, it is apparent that John 1:1 also distinguishes two mighty beings.
Whence, Then, The Trinity?
Where did this doctrine come from? When did it come? For what Reason? How did it take hold? Probably it developed as an over-zealous response to the vital gnostic heresies which began to surface even in John's day, and afflicted the church for about two centuries. Gnostics proposed that Jesus was not actually the Messiah — some say he was an apparition, or a materialization, others a simple man possessed for a time by the Christ — but all agreed that the Anointed, the Messiah, the Christ, did not suffer and die on the cross.
This fundamentally undercuts the Truth of Christianity, and against such views were John's strong warnings in 1 John 1:22,23, 4:1-3, 2 John 7. Indeed, these epistles of John and even the Gospel of John, read with the backdrop of these heresies in mind, take on a fresh and deeper meaning than ever before. It is for this reason that John was forceful in affirming that the very Jesus "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1 John 1:1) was the very Word of life who existed from ages before with the Father, the agent of all the Father's creative work from the beginning. This very one did indeed suffer and die on the cross for our sins. John was there when it happened, a first-hand witness. "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" (John19:35).
As John passed from the scene the gnostic heresies grew in strength, causing a severe pressure within the early Christian community. In combatting this error, and in emphasizing the significance,uniqueness and importance of Jesus, the very Son of God himself, it was natural to attach more and more weight to him, even over-emphasizing his office and majesty beyond that allowed in the scriptures. Little by little a greater and greater image of him was put forward, resulting in such erroreous views as Sabellius put forward in the 3rd century, claiming that Jesus was but an expression of the one God, and not a lesser though glorious separate being. This was generally rejected, but in the end a sad compromise was reached which left distorted the real verities regarding Christ, the highly honored Son of the Most High God.
The early affirmation of the Church fathers that Christ was both created and subordinate gave way to new theories, until the old adherents were moved to a staunch defense. The great Arian controversy erupted as a result, philosophy was argued in the name of Christian doctrine, and a great rift formed in the fledgling body of Christ.
The Nicene Creed
About this time, in the early 4th century AD, Constantine came to power, first of the so-called Christian Emperors. The foment and dissension was so apparent, and so divisive to his empire, he insisted the breach be healed, by force if necessary. Under his influence hordes of former pagans were becoming "Christian" in name, and there was an urgency to resolve these issues in a way conducive to the growth and tranquillity of his domain.
With this backdrop a Council was convened at Nice, and through much tumult was forged the highly ambiguous and strangely worded Nicene Creed, which has been an enigma ever since. No wonder. The language used to "settle" the debate was drawn not from scripture, but from the very pagan sources the emperor wished to make comfortable with their newly acquired "faith."
The Historical Buildup
To grasp the enormity and significance of what occured at Nice, we need to review some of the historical FACTS regarding the Trinity.
Fact One — The word Trinity is nowhere found in the scriptures.
Fact Two — Not one of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Mathetes, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr) mentioned this doctrine in any of the 1200 pages of text they left us.
Fact Three — When the word "Trinity" first appeared in Christian writings it meant nothing like it does today. It simply implied the existence of God, his Word, and Wisdom.
Fact Four — Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Arnobius and Lactantius (all early and revered Christian writers) explicitly affirmed that the Heavenly Father alone is the supreme God and that Jesus is subordinate to His will and authority (The Lord our God is one Lord, Bible Students Congregation of New Brunswick, page 2). "During the first three centuries ... almost all of the early church Fathers ... admitted the inferiority of the Son to the Father" (Alvan Lamson, Church of the First Three Centuries).
Fact Five — The early formal statement of Christian belief never mentions the word "Trinity" or any of its concepts. It is termed the "Apostles' Creed" (though not composed by the apostles). It was used extensively in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Christian era. As regards God and Jesus, it affirms exactly what we affirm. It says simply:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God,the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the holy spirit; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen"
Language Lifted from Heathen Sources
Now compare that simple statement of belief, so clear and brief, to the Creed produced from the Council at Nice in 325 AD. (Our comments in Bold Italic.) "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, (so far so good, the language is mostly from the Apostles Creed. But now follows the strange new terminology) that is of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; of the same substance with the Father; (end of mystical language, back to scriptural language) by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and our salvation descended and became flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into heaven; he cometh to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. (Now resumes the new concepts, full of bitterness to dissenters.) But those that say there was a time when he was not; or that he was not before he was begotten; or that he was made from that which had no being; or whom affirm the Son of God to be of any other substance or essence, or created, (despite three clear scriptures!) or variable, or mutable, such persons doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize."
Note these strange, philosophical, mystical expressions — "one substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God." Such strange words, foreign alike to the word and sense of any Scripture. Where, oh where do these come from? Who invented them? Whence there source? The answer is both startling, and chilling. John Newton, in Origin of Triads and Trinities, wrote:
"With the first glimpse of a distinct religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them grouping their gods in triads. ... [now citing Professor Sayce from Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures] 'The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.' [Newton continues] And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, such as 'Light of Light,Very God of Very God, Begotten not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.' These are all understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions ... The simplicity and symmetry of the old Sun Trinities were utterly lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. ... The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its origin." (John Newton, Origin of Triads and Trinities, Liverpool, 1909, pp. 20-21, 25-27). Will Durant, the popular Catholic historian of our day, wrote: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ..." (Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant cited from Charles Redeker, To Us there is One God, June 1978).
No wonder the confusion. No wonder the controversy. No wonder the debate. No wonder that all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity.
Why is this Important?
Because it is a travesty upon the Truth, one which has endured for centuries. Like the doctrine of Purgatory, it took hold upon the church as the Dark Ages began to creep over Europe. But as the lingering mists of mystery and confusion fade, the simple Truths of the Scripture sparkle the brighter. How clear the scriptural statements. Jesus, God's chief agent from all creation, the one who was a treasure to his heart, "daily his delight," God sent to be the redeemer of men. He was made flesh, dwelt among us, and gave his life in death so that Adam and his race could be freed. He gave the Ransom with his own flesh. In due course he will introduce his Kingdom among men, Satan shall be thoroughly bound, and the Millennial Kingdom of righteousness be established in all the world. Even now a transition of the ages is upon us which will yield this blessed result.
Meanwhile we have the special privilege of a personal walk with the Master, to receive if "faithful unto death" a crown of life divine, immortal, in the heavenly courts. We shall have the honor of reigning with Christ in glory. At that time we shall assist our master in delivering the whole world out of bondage, aThe Doctrine of the TRINITY...Mystery or Confusion?A Reverent Examination, by Christians, for Christians
"There is but One God, the Father."1 Corinthians 8:6
All who consider the issue agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible. Its most ardent proponents suppose this to be a strength -- that as we cannot comprehend the majesty and glory of the infinite Creator, so we cannot fathom his nature and being. Not so. The Creator has explicitly revealed himself through His Word as a mighty, unitary being, the great first cause of all things, having no equal, no predecessor and no successor. He is Jehovah by name, and God by title.
For 4000 years those who worshipped Him and trusted Him had no hint, no surmise, no suggestion that he was other than the single, unitary God He declared Himself to be. "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is One" (Deut. 6:4). "Know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD" (Isaiah 43:10, 11).
Christ — The Long Awaited Messiah!
The Jews were aware that God would send a Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek) -- one anointed by God as his prophet, his servant. Moses told them "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken"(Deuteronomy 18:15). Isaiah said "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him" (Isaiah 42:1).
These prophecies — and many more like them — consistently describe Messiah as a highly honored subordinate of God Almighty. Jesus was that promised Messiah. He was no ordinary messenger.He was in fact the very son of God, so termed 47 times in the New Testament. Jesus performed every duty faithfully, and has now been exalted to the "right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews1:3). "God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows" (Hebrews1:9). Jesus, always an obedient son to his Heavenly Father, now exalted above all others, is still a devoted son and subordinate of the Heavenly Father.
He does not assume his honor, glory or service on his own. On the contrary, he receives them all at the hand of his Father and superior, God himself. "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God ... So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son" (Hebrews 5:4, 5). "The Son of man came ... to the Ancient of days... and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" (Daniel 7:13, 14).
What is the Trinity?
It is a doctrine formulated in the 4th century to describe the view of some leading churchmen concerning the nature and relationship of God, Jesus and the holy Spirit. It was enunciated in a series of creeds: The Nicene Creed (325 ad), The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 ad), and the Athanasian Creed (ca. 5th century ad). It took various forms and used multitudes of words so complex and enigmatic it is incomprehensible. Some Christians consider "trinity" simply to imply belief in God, Jesus and the holy Spirit — a broad platform all Christians can endorse. Differently, but still quite simply, the first use of this word in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.
The Scriptural truth, on the other hand, is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible: God is one person, his son Jesus is a second person, and the holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the spirit, power and influence of God. Jesus is subordinate to his Heavenly Father. God existed from eternity,but there was a time before the creation of his son Jesus when God was alone. However, let us examine four essential components of the trinitarian view, closely, against the scriptures.
(1) Who is God?
It is customary in trinitarian language to speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are assumed to be proper titles, and used extensively. Yet in the Scriptures only one of these appears, "God the Father," and that not as a title, but an expression denoting that God is the Father. "There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). The term appears 11 times in the New Testament. By contrast, the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" appear zero times.
The word "God" appears about 1200 times in the New Testament. Nearly all of these refer — no surprise — to God himself. Not even one time does this word refer to the holy Spirit. However, as a word, "god" has a variety of applications. For example the Old Testament Hebrew word "elohim" (god) can describe any high dignitary (e.g. Abraham, Genesis 23:6). In the King James translation it is rendered variously: angels, God, gods, great, mighty, judges. Its Greek counterpart "theos" likewise has a broad usage. Strong's Concordance defines it as: "a deity,especially ... the supreme Divinity; fig. a magistrate." If this word can describe a magistrate, then it can certainly describe Jesus, and it is so used six times in the New Testament (John 1:1, 18, 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1). It is used in John 10:35 of the worshippers of Jehovah. Once it even refers to Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4).
None of these uses should confuse us about who is really the one and only supreme God of the universe, the one both Jews and Christians naturally and freely term "God" — Jehovah, the Almighty God of all. However two texts, frequently cited in support of the trinity, deserve special attention:John 1:1 (discussed separately later), and John 20:28. The latter text records the startled exclamation of praise and adoration by Thomas on seeing the resurrected Christ: "My Lord and my God." Does this mean Christ was verily great Jehovah Himself? Of course not. These (god, magistrate) is the term of great respect, awe and worship Thomas attributed to his Lord and Master. Indeed, in the very same chapter, Jesus explained to Mary Magdalene that he had not yet ascended "unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17). Clearly Jesus recognized almighty God as distinct from, and superior to, himself. God is, as Paul declared, "the Father." No scripture uses the expressions "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit"!
(2) Are Jesus and God Co-Equal?
According to the Scriptures, they clearly are NOT equal. In every case, where God and Jesus are referred to in one context, Jesus is subordinate, and the Father is superior. Here are a handful of the many texts on this issue:
"Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19)"My Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28)"The Head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3)"[Jesus] sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12)"Then shall the Son also himself be subject ... that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28)
Perhaps most telling of all is that Jesus recognizes God as his own God -- his superior, to whom he renders adoration, worship and praise (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, Revelation1:6). No scripture says Jesus is co-equal!
(3) Are Jesus and God Co-Eternal?
In the sense that both will always exist, yes. But that is true of angels and saints and all the obedient.The intent of Co-Eternal is that they always existed eternally from ages past, neither preceding the other. This is not true of Jesus. The Scriptures affirm that Jesus was "the beginning of the Creation of God" (Revelation 3:14), and the "firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15). Therefore he had a beginning. There was a time before that when God was alone. Proverbs 8:22 says of Jesus, "The LORD created me the first of his works long ago, before all else that he made. I was formed in earliest times, at the beginning, before earth itself" (Proverbs 8:22, 23, NRSV). No scripture says Jesus was co-eternal!
(4) Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
Ordinarily there would be no question about this. The holy Spirit of God anointed Jesus at Jordan, who received it not "by measure" (John 3:34). It is "poured out" and "shed" on others (Acts 10:45,Acts 2:17,33, Joel 2:28, Zechariah 12:10). Persons are not "poured," "shed" or "measured," but the spirit, power and influence of God is properly described this way.
The holy Spirit of God is variously described in Scripture as the spirit of Truth, Holiness, Life, Faith, Wisdom, Grace, and Glory. The Scripts also speak of an opposite spirit of Jealousy, Judgment, Burning, Heaviness, Whoredoms, Infirmity, Divination, Bondage, Slumber, Fear, Antichrist and Error. Do we suppose these are persons?
The Scriptures speak of the spirit of Jacob, Elijah, Tiglath-Pilesser, the Philistines, Cyrus, Princes, the Medes, Zerubbabel, and Joshua. Are these spirits all persons?
Why, then, would any suppose the "holy Spirit of God" (Ephesians 4:30) to be a separate being? Actually no one would (and no one did) until the time mysteries and philosophies began to enter Christian dogma. (More of that later.) But today, centuries later, some suppose a support for the personhood of the holy Spirit because of the pronouns used for it in the New Testament. For example, "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ..." (John 16:13). And of the Comforter Jesus said "I will send him unto you" (verse 7). It sounds like a person because of the pronouns "he" and "him."
But a little examination into the Greek explains the issue. When "comforter" is meant the pronoun is masculine, but when "spirit" is intended the pronoun is neuter. Literally it could be translated "it will guide you ..." It is simply a matter of grammar, not of personality. The Greek word for"comforter" is a masculine noun, and that for "spirit" is a neuter noun. Therefore the pronouns necessarily follow the gender of the noun. (Actually the genders in verse 13 are supplied by the Greek verbs rather than by explicit pronouns, but you get the idea.) No scripture says the holy Spirit of God is a person!
John 1:1
The only passage which even comes close to teaching the Trinity is 1 John 5:7, 8. But today it is common knowledge that the essential parts of this passage were not original scripture. The words at issue are an embellishment added to the text by an over-zealous scribe centuries after John died,and no reputable modern version even includes them. For this reason the focus of attention has turned to John 1:1. Clearly this does not teach the Trinity per se, because it does not even mention the holy Spirit, and one cannot have a "trinity" without three parties. But it does say "the Word was God" (King James translation), and this is close enough to one of the pieces of the Trinity to cause interest. What did John mean by this?
There are three popular views:
(1) He meant Jesus really was "God Himself"(2) He meant Jesus was "God-like"(3) He meant Jesus was "a god."
Trinitarians are naturally drawn to the first view. But (other than all we have said above), this view is in danger of proving TOO MUCH — that Jesus and God are the same person. Indeed, many trinitarians assert this without recognizing this is more like the heresy of Sabellius than the orthodox trinity.
The problem becomes apparent when one compares John 1:1 with 1 John 1:2. Both texts are from the same author, about the same time, and express the same thoughts. John 1:1 says the Word was "with God," 1 John 1:2 says the Word was "with the Father." Clearly John intends that "God" was"the Father." Thus if John intends that the Word was "God Himself," he must mean the Word was "the Father" — a conclusion no orthodox trinitarian can embrace. For this reason the majority of translators, including trinitarian translators, do not hold view one!
Thus view 2. "When John said that the Word was God he was not saying that Jesus is identicalwith God; he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being, that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, page 17). In this camp are the following: William Barclay, Martin Vincent, J.P. Lange, Robert Young, BrookFoss Westcott, Kenneth Wuest, George Turner, Julius Mantey, H.E. Dana, Moulton and Moffat.Typical of this view is the REB translation: "The Word was in God's presence, and what God was,the Word was." It is possible that this was John's point. However, View Three actually fits the context still better.As many Bible students are aware, the words "a" and "an" (called indefinite articles) do not exist in the Greek language. If one wished to say "I saw a tree," in Greek it would be "I saw tree" and everyone would know the intent is "a" tree. Therefore a translator would automatically supply it.This is done everywhere in the New Testament where the English word "a" or "an" appears.
So in John 1:1. The text actually says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was [a?] God." Should the translator supply the intended "a" or not? That is the question. Contrary to many vocal claims on this issue, it is a sound and reasonable thing to do. C.H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges "As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 28, Jan. 1977, page 101ff, cited from James Parkinson, "The Herald," Sept-Oct 1966, page 23). Notice that the translators of the King James version had no hesitation in using "a god" in Acts 28:6 where the context makes it obvious. (It also belongs in John 10:33, as the logic of Jesus' reply shows.)
A very good reason for adding "a" in John 1:1 is John 1:18, but the point is hidden in the King James version. Today it is generally acknowledged that the better, earlier Greek manuscripts of this verse refer to Jesus as "the only begotten god" (see the NASB for example). John there says no one has ever seen "God," but "the only begotten god, which is in the bosom of the Father," has appeared to declare what God is about. First it is clear that by "God" John means "the Father." Second it is clear that John has two gods in mind -- God himself, the unseen, and the son of God, Jesus, who in his own right is also a mighty being, "a god." Since John 1:18 distinguishes two mighty beings, it is apparent that John 1:1 also distinguishes two mighty beings.
Whence, Then, The Trinity?
Where did this doctrine come from? When did it come? For what Reason? How did it take hold? Probably it developed as an over-zealous response to the vital gnostic heresies which began to surface even in John's day, and afflicted the church for about two centuries. Gnostics proposed that Jesus was not actually the Messiah — some say he was an apparition, or a materialization, others a simple man possessed for a time by the Christ — but all agreed that the Anointed, the Messiah, the Christ, did not suffer and die on the cross.
This fundamentally undercuts the Truth of Christianity, and against such views were John's strong warnings in 1 John 1:22,23, 4:1-3, 2 John 7. Indeed, these epistles of John and even the Gospel of John, read with the backdrop of these heresies in mind, take on a fresh and deeper meaning than ever before. It is for this reason that John was forceful in affirming that the very Jesus "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1 John 1:1) was the very Word of life who existed from ages before with the Father, the agent of all the Father's creative work from the beginning. This very one did indeed suffer and die on the cross for our sins. John was there when it happened, a first-hand witness. "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" (John19:35).
As John passed from the scene the gnostic heresies grew in strength, causing a severe pressure within the early Christian community. In combatting this error, and in emphasizing the significance,uniqueness and importance of Jesus, the very Son of God himself, it was natural to attach more and more weight to him, even over-emphasizing his office and majesty beyond that allowed in the scriptures. Little by little a greater and greater image of him was put forward, resulting in such erroreous views as Sabellius put forward in the 3rd century, claiming that Jesus was but an expression of the one God, and not a lesser though glorious separate being. This was generally rejected, but in the end a sad compromise was reached which left distorted the real verities regarding Christ, the highly honored Son of the Most High God.
The early affirmation of the Church fathers that Christ was both created and subordinate gave way to new theories, until the old adherents were moved to a staunch defense. The great Arian controversy erupted as a result, philosophy was argued in the name of Christian doctrine, and a great rift formed in the fledgling body of Christ.
The Nicene Creed
About this time, in the early 4th century AD, Constantine came to power, first of the so-called Christian Emperors. The foment and dissension was so apparent, and so divisive to his empire, he insisted the breach be healed, by force if necessary. Under his influence hordes of former pagans were becoming "Christian" in name, and there was an urgency to resolve these issues in a way conducive to the growth and tranquillity of his domain.
With this backdrop a Council was convened at Nice, and through much tumult was forged the highly ambiguous and strangely worded Nicene Creed, which has been an enigma ever since. No wonder. The language used to "settle" the debate was drawn not from scripture, but from the very pagan sources the emperor wished to make comfortable with their newly acquired "faith."
The Historical Buildup
To grasp the enormity and significance of what occured at Nice, we need to review some of the historical FACTS regarding the Trinity.
Fact One — The word Trinity is nowhere found in the scriptures.
Fact Two — Not one of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Mathetes, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr) mentioned this doctrine in any of the 1200 pages of text they left us.
Fact Three — When the word "Trinity" first appeared in Christian writings it meant nothing like it does today. It simply implied the existence of God, his Word, and Wisdom.
Fact Four — Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Arnobius and Lactantius (all early and revered Christian writers) explicitly affirmed that the Heavenly Father alone is the supreme God and that Jesus is subordinate to His will and authority (The Lord our God is one Lord, Bible Students Congregation of New Brunswick, page 2). "During the first three centuries ... almost all of the early church Fathers ... admitted the inferiority of the Son to the Father" (Alvan Lamson, Church of the First Three Centuries).
Fact Five — The early formal statement of Christian belief never mentions the word "Trinity" or any of its concepts. It is termed the "Apostles' Creed" (though not composed by the apostles). It was used extensively in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Christian era. As regards God and Jesus, it affirms exactly what we affirm. It says simply:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God,the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the holy spirit; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen"
Language Lifted from Heathen Sources
Now compare that simple statement of belief, so clear and brief, to the Creed produced from the Council at Nice in 325 AD. (Our comments in Bold Italic.) "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, (so far so good, the language is mostly from the Apostles Creed. But now follows the strange new terminology) that is of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; of the same substance with the Father; (end of mystical language, back to scriptural language) by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and our salvation descended and became flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into heaven; he cometh to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. (Now resumes the new concepts, full of bitterness to dissenters.) But those that say there was a time when he was not; or that he was not before he was begotten; or that he was made from that which had no being; or whom affirm the Son of God to be of any other substance or essence, or created, (despite three clear scriptures!) or variable, or mutable, such persons doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize."
Note these strange, philosophical, mystical expressions — "one substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God." Such strange words, foreign alike to the word and sense of any Scripture. Where, oh where do these come from? Who invented them? Whence there source? The answer is both startling, and chilling. John Newton, in Origin of Triads and Trinities, wrote:
"With the first glimpse of a distinct religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them grouping their gods in triads. ... [now citing Professor Sayce from Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures] 'The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.' [Newton continues] And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, such as 'Light of Light,Very God of Very God, Begotten not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.' These are all understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions ... The simplicity and symmetry of the old Sun Trinities were utterly lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. ... The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its origin." (John Newton, Origin of Triads and Trinities, Liverpool, 1909, pp. 20-21, 25-27). Will Durant, the popular Catholic historian of our day, wrote: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ..." (Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant cited from Charles Redeker, To Us there is One God, June 1978).
No wonder the confusion. No wonder the controversy. No wonder the debate. No wonder that all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity.
Why is this Important?
Because it is a travesty upon the Truth, one which has endured for centuries. Like the doctrine of Purgatory, it took hold upon the church as the Dark Ages began to creep over Europe. But as the lingering mists of mystery and confusion fade, the simple Truths of the Scripture sparkle the brighter. How clear the scriptural statements. Jesus, God's chief agent from all creation, the one who was a treasure to his heart, "daily his delight," God sent to be the redeemer of men. He was made flesh, dwelt among us, and gave his life in death so that Adam and his race could be freed. He gave the Ransom with his own flesh. In due course he will introduce his Kingdom among men, Satan shall be thoroughly bound, and the Millennial Kingdom of righteousness be established in all the world. Even now a transition of the ages is upon us which will yield this blessed result.
Meanwhile we have the special privilege of a personal walk with the Master, to receive if "faithful unto death" a crown of life divine, immortal, in the heavenly courts. We shall have the honor of reigning with Christ in glory. At that time we shall assist our master in delivering the whole world out of bondage, and into faith, until "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Revelation 2:10, 20:6, Isaiah 11:9). "Hallelujah, What a Savior!"
SAN DIEGO BIBLE STUDENTS • BOX 15701 • SAN DIEGO, CA • 92115-0701


nd into faith, until "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Revelation 2:10, 20:6, Isaiah 11:9). "Hallelujah, What a Savior!"
SAN DIEGO BIBLE STUDENTS • BOX 15701 • SAN DIEGO, CA • 92115-0701

http://www.islamreligion.com/videos/3451/

In the Prophet's Footsteps

By: Idris Tawfiq

If I am to be truthful, I must admit that I really understood the importance of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) only when I first performed `Umrah and then went on to visit the Prophet's Mosque in Madinah. Up until that time, like every Muslim, I had read many books about Muhammad and knew about him as a great man and a great leader. I had read many hadiths and I knew that to him was given the final revelation of Almighty Allah to mankind. I had even begun writing a book about his life to tell it in a very simple way to those who are not Muslim.
To my great surprise, one of my very first thoughts on entering the sanctuary of the Ka`bah was that Prophet Muhammad had been here before me. In running between the hills of Safa and Marwah, I could almost see Prophet Muhammad calling out to the people of Makkah and warning them that they must abandon idol worship before it was too late.
I could almost see him, after he had been assaulted by men of the Quraish, being defended by Hamzah, who became Muslim as a result.I could imagine Muhammad entering Makkah in triumph, at the head of an army of believers, offering forgiveness and amnesty to those who had fought him, after all the trials to which he had been subjected.
The real thunderbolt, though, came in Madinah. Nothing could have prepared me for the tears which seemed to come from nowhere when I found myself in the presence of the Prophet's tomb. I was there along with hundreds of others, crushing to be close to offer their prayers for the Prophet. I have never known such peace as the peace found in the Prophet's Mosque. For the first time, everyone responded "ameen" in harmony to the prayers. Even the people of Madinah seemed so kind and gentle, so proud that theirs was the city of the Messenger of Allah.
Untold numbers of books have been written about the Prophet's life. Born in relative obscurity, for Makkah was an important trading center but it was hardly the center of the world, Muhammad grew up after he was 6 years old with neither father nor mother. At first he tended sheep and then took part in trading missions with his family members. He could neither read nor write. As the world judges things, these were not the hallmarks of greatness and gave no hint that this man would be the greatest man ever to have lived. Allah, though, judges differently than men. He knew that Muhammad was both honest and religious. Allah chooses whom He wills and He chose Muhammad from all the men on earth to deliver His final message to mankind.
These books of the Prophet's life tell of his great achievements, how he was both a great statesman and a great leader, a great warrior and a great diplomat. He was wise and was looked up to because of his wisdom. None of these things, though, are what make Prophet Muhammad the greatest of men, although each one of them would be sufficient for him to be considered so. The thing which singles him out from the rest of mankind was his total submission to the will of Allah.
Islam means "submission" and it comes from an Arabic root word meaning "submission, purity, and peace." In the person of Prophet Muhammad we see someone who was able to submit totally to the will of Allah in all things and who achieved peace in his life which was greater than anyone had known before.
The Companions who were at the Prophet's side and who in their own right have become giants of Islam were not soft or weak men. They were strong and courageous, yet in the presence of Muhammad they were like little children. "Better than my father or my mother," was how they used to address him, and they would have given their lives to keep him safe.
When visitors to Madinah used to arrive in search of the Prophet, they would often be told that he could be found in the mosque. When they got inside the mosque they usually had to ask, "Which one is Muhammad?" since he sat in no special place or was not attended by servants or guards. They were astonished that the leader of the Muslim state could be so humble and so simple. Even when he died, the Prophet was not buried in some elaborate tomb, as leaders of other states are to this day, but he was simply buried in the earth beneath the place where he used to sleep.
So why then is Muhammad's life important for us to imitate? What is it that makes his life special? Why is the seerah of the Prophet the actual example for us to follow to lead a successful life as Muslims? As with all things in Islam, the answer is very simple.
As men and women, we are not perfect. We want all the time to do as Allah commands, but we are very slow to put those commands into practice. We spend hours and hours watching the television or talking for hours on the telephone or chatting on the Internet, yet when it comes time to pray, we are busy. We hear the Call to Prayer in the morning, the most beautiful of all sounds, yet we turn over and go back to sleep. We know what is required of us as Muslims, yet we fail to do it. What poor examples of Muslims we are. No wonder the world has such a poor idea about Islam!
Prophet Muhammad is the example which makes us realize that it is possible to live this Islam. It is possible to live as a good Muslim in this world because Muhammad did and Muhammad was a man. Muslims do not ascribe magical powers to their Prophet. He was neither a saint nor a magician nor a god, but a man like we are, a man married with children. By responding so promptly to what Allah wanted of him, he became the intimate friend of Allah, loved by Him and chosen by Him to speak in His name. This is what is important about Muhammad's life. He lived as a Muslim.
When those horrible cartoons of our beloved Prophet appeared in Denmark and when Pope Benedict XVI quoted bad things about him, many Muslims took to the streets in protest. Many cars could be seen to bear the sticker, "I love Prophet Muhammad." I even saw one sticker that said, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Prophet Muhammad." However, those same people continued to behave in the same lukewarm way towards their religion.
Instead of offering to die for the Prophet, would it not have been better to declare that we would live for him, by following his life and example? How the world would sit up and listen if we could live as good Muslims! The life and example of the Prophet, then, is the way for us to lead a successful life. What is this success? It is living as Allah wants us to live, worshiping Him alone, being prompt to prayer and the payment of zakah, fasting in Ramadan with all our heart and all our soul, and if Allah wills it to be so, going on pilgrimage to Makkah to perform the Hajj in obedience to His command. When our life is over, we will have been successful if, in imitation of our beloved Prophet, we are able to declare that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
I hope this answers your question. Please remain in touch.
Salam
Useful Links:
In the Prophet's Footsteps
The Model of the Prophet
Why Prophet Muhammad Is Mentioned in the Shahadah
The Seal of Prophets
Owing Respect to the Prophet
Status of Prophet Muhammad
Is Following Sunnah Mandatory?
Why Do We Follow the Sunnah?

The Criminality of the Syrain Regime: Can Iran and Naser Allah Tell the Palastinians why?

رايتس ووتش تتهم سوريا بجرائم حرب
المنظمة اتهمت النظام السوري بارتكاب جرائم ضد الإنسانية في حمصاتهمت منظمة هيومن رايتس ووتش الحقوقية -في تقرير أصدرته اليوم الجمعة- النظام السوري بارتكاب "جرائم ضد الإنسانية" في حمص. وأوضحت أن القوات الحكومية تمارس "انتهاكات جسيمة" تشمل أعمال تعذيب وقتل غير قانوني.
ودعت المنظمة -المعنية بالدفاع عن حقوق الإنسان ومقرها نيويورك- الجامعة العربية في اجتماعها المرتقب في القاهرة غدا السبت إلى تجميد عضوية سوريا، وأن تطلب من مجلس الأمن أن يفرض حظرا على الأسلحة وعقوبات على الأفراد المسؤولين عن "الانتهاكات"، وإحالة ملف سوريا إلى المحكمة الجنائية الدولية.
وأضافت المنظمة -في بيان صاحب التقرير- أن "الطبيعة المنهجية للانتهاكات بحق المدنيين في حمص من قبل قوات الحكومة السورية -ومن بينها جرائم تعذيب وقتل خارج نطاق القانون- تمثل جرائم ضد الإنسانية".
وأوضحت المنظمة أن قوات الأمن السورية قتلت 104 على الأقل في حمص منذ الثاني من نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني، حين وافقت الحكومة السورية على خطة وضعتها الجامعة العربية لإنهاء العنف وبدء حوار مع معارضي الرئيس بشار الأسد.
وقالت المنظمة إن عمليات القتل هذه جاءت بعد قتل ما لا يقل عن 587 مدنيا في حمص بين شهريْ أبريل/نيسان وأغسطس/آب، وهو أكبر عدد من القتلى يسقط في أي محافظة سورية.
وقالت المديرة التنفيذية لقسم الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا في المنظمة سارة ليا ويتسن إن "حمص نموذج مُصغر دال على مدى قسوة الحكومة السورية. وعلى الجامعة العربية أن تخبر الرئيس الأسد بأن خرق الاتفاق مع الجامعة له تبعات، وأن الجامعة تساند الآن تحرك مجلس الأمن من أجل وقف القتل".
ووصفت المنظمة الحصول على معلومات دقيقة بأنه مهمة "تنطوي على تحد"، واستند تقرير المنظمة إلى مقابلات مع 114 من سكان حمص الذين إما هربوا إلى دول مجاورة أو تحدثوا عبر الإنترنت من داخل سوريا.


المنظمة قالت إنها وثقت 17 حالة وفاة أثناء الاحتجاز في حمص بينها 12 بسبب التعذيبتعذيب ممنهجوقالت هيومان رايتس ووتش إن قوات الأمن "استخدمت بشكل منهجي الرشاشات الثقيلة ومن بينها مدافع مضادة للطائرات توضع على عربات مصفحة لإطلاق النار على الأحياء لترويع الناس".
وذكرت المنظمة أن الآلاف في حمص وباقي أنحاء سوريا يتعرضون لاعتقالات تعسفية وعمليات اختفاء قسري وتعذيب ممنهج أثناء الاحتجاز. وأفرج عن معظم المحتجزين بعد عدة أسابيع لكن عدة مئات ما زالوا مفقودين.
وقالت المنظمة إنها وثقت 17 حالة وفاة أثناء الاحتجاز في حمص، بينها 12 على الأقل من الواضح أنهم ماتوا بسبب التعذيب. مضيفة أنها تحدثت مع 25 محتجزا سابقا في حمص قالوا جميعا إنهم تعرضوا لأشكال مختلفة من التعذيب.
ونقلت المنظمة عن رجل احتجز في قاعدة تابعة للمخابرات العسكرية في حمص قوله إنه تعرض للضرب بالأسلاك وعلق من يديه.
وقال "كنت أترك معلقا هناك نحو ست ساعات، كانوا يضربونني ويسكبون الماء فوقي، ثم يستخدمون صواعق الكهرباء".
تعليقات القراء
التعليقات المنشورة لا تعبر عن رأي الجزيرة وإنما تعبر عن رأي أصحابها
18
عبد الله الادلبي
ادلب الثورة
هيومن رايتس ووتش والله فيها شرف ودين واخلاق وانسانية اكثرمن جامعة النفاق العربية وحكامها الخونة , بالرغم من اننا نعلم تقاعسها عن حق اخواننا في فلسطين
17
المنفلوطي
هل نحتاج للهيومن رايتس لإثبات عمليات القتل الحاصل
النظام قمعي دموي منذ البداية أتعجب فقط من تحمل السوريين له كل هذه الفترة والجامعة لابد من محاسبتها بعد الفرج بالانسحاب
16
نصرالله
انها المقاومة
لك هادا نصرالله بدو يضل ينط ويعلقلي . بكره بس لتنجح الثوره السوريه بدنا نرحعه لحجمه الطبيعي.
15
يشوع سحيوقره
الحسكه-المالكيه
الى الذي يسأل ....أين الدعوة لحماية المدنيين في البحرين؟ أين الدعوة لحماية المدنيين في فلسطين؟؟؟؟ أين كانت الدعوة لحماية المدنيين اللبنانيين من القصف الصهيوني؟ أين الحماية الدولية للمدنيين العراقيين من العدو الأمريكي الارهابي؟؟ شو معنى كلامك يعني.. اذا لم نستطع ان نفعل شئ لهؤلاء نترك الشعب السوري يذبح عن بكره ابيه. يعني تعميم الموت. بالعكس هلى بتقدر نساعده. بنساعده. اليس كذلك. بركدن سقوط النظام السوري بيكون بشاره لجميع المتهضين في العالم.
14
اسلام عبد الله
مصر
حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل
13
رايتس ووتش تتهم سوريا بجرائم حرب
صح النوم تي تي تي صح النوم تن ترن نن
رايتس ووتش تتهم سوريا بجرائم حرب ..صح النوم تي تي تي صح النوم تن ترن نن صح النوم
12
ميرا بنت حوران
USA
قد أسمعت لو ناديت حياً. حسبنا الله و نعم الوكيل و الله يكون معك يا خوي و يفك اسرك و اسر كل المعتقل و يذوق الناس الي يدافعوا عن هالنظام القاتل يذوقهم من نفس الكأس.
11
حكيم
إذا لم تتحرك الجامعة لنصرة الشعب السوري فلا حاجة
إذا لم تتحرك الجامعة لنصرة الشعب السوري فلا حاجة لنا بها ولتذهب هي وأمينها ولجانها والنظم التي تمثلها إلى الجحيم وأهلاً بجيوش البشرية والانسانية من ناتو زغيرها لتحمي الشعب السوري من همجية رؤساءه الأشاوس الذين لم تظهر ممانعتهم إلا ضد شعوبهم
10
أبو أحمد
ما علاقة الطز بالمرحبا ؟؟؟
لم يجد المدافعين عن الأسد وسيلة لتبرير الفظائع التي ترتكبهاعصاباته إلا بالطعن بمنظمة حقوق الانسان وبسجلها الحافل بإزدواجية المعايير . وحسب رأيهم يحق لبشار أن يفعل ما يشاء طالما أن هذه المنظمة سيئة الصيت لم تدين جرائم الصهيونية . فما علاقة الأمرين ببعضهما ؟؟؟
9
سوري حر
سوريا الحرة
نظام ساقط لا محالة ... والله لم تقتل رصاصاته الغادرة الا الخوف في قلوبنا نحن الثوار الاحرار ... تحيا سوريا حرة ... وحرية للابد غصب عنك يا اسد هل الممانعة بقتل الشعب الأعزل وتعذيب المدنيين وكم الأفواه ومنع الصلاة في الجيش و انتشار الفساد و الفاسدين وزيادة الفرق بين الفقراء والأغنياء ... تحيا حمص يا ليتني حمصي شجاع
1 2

Blogger comment:
The Palestinians are always looking for someone to stand with for their struggle, which I believe strongly is a political and diplomatic one. The crazy Saddam who made millions of people die and money goes in the air. After he invaded Kuwait he said that he did that for the Palestinians, he did not check the map before he invade Kuwait. Iran and Naser-Allah are saying they are standing for the Palestinians while they are standing with the criminal ruthless Bashar. Palestine is a case they use to advance their control and political agenda at home. Naserallah war with Israel so what you killed some of them and they killed some of you. You did not solve the poverty problem in the Arab/Muslims world or better health care. It is like the old history find enemies to make yourself a hero and make your people glue around you.