Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Bad thing I had to paste the quote twice until you realized it – which makes me question if you’re actually reading all my posts thoroughly or not. In fact my response of today clearly shows that you’re either inept or you have deliberately avoided the vitally essential quotes of the 4-5 Islamic scholars (All promoting the same orthodox view of the eternal Quran) I’ve been quoting from this far – I opt to convince people of the latter. That’s pretty funny, considering your little assertion of what “Christians believe” is not only incorrect in the light of: a) everything I’ve emphasized in my last post concerning what Christians REALLY believe concerning Christ, but also b) those exact Christian beliefs that your orthodox Muslim scholars rightfully paralleled to the orthodox view of Quran. Jesus was the divine among men, because he WAS the eternal word manifest in the flesh, the eternal word didn’t simply directly manifest itself to Christ, “imbuing” him in any sense, Christ was the direct manifestation of The eternal Word of God in the form of a creation - This is the parallel your scholars have been drawing to the Quran (in order to give Christians a better understanding of what the Quran is), and it is the only thing in Christianity that like the orthodox Muslim view of the Quran – represents God’s eternal word directly expressed/manifest in the form of the finite creation! (I hope this finally gets to you by now) We are concerned with logically deducing the nature of your Quran, from the very conclusions made by Islamic scholars concerning the Quran – “It is the direct expression of the eternal divine will/word in the form of a finite creation – namely a book.” I’m sorry, but that’s not consistent with what your scholars are asserting. Here let me break it down for you: Christians and Jews believe their scripture “reflects the absolute truth” as a result of its divine inspiration, but this does not make scripture divine in nature – its not considered the eternal speech of God as the Quran is. The reason your Muslim scholars made an exclusive parallel between Christ and the Quran (rather than the Quran and the Gospels/Torah) is because of the eternal and divine nature of the two – they both represent in their respective religions – what was eternally existent as the divine will, manifest in a finite form of creation, and not because they simply “reflect the absolute truth” – which would open parallels between the Quran and any of the Jewish/Christian scripture and even to the prophets/apostles, but there is a GOOD REASON for why they emphasized that the parallel between Christ and the Quran is exclusive. (which i hope becomes even more clear by the end of this post). Why is that? Angels are not hypostasis of God: they are not eternal, nor do they emanate from or share God’s essence: which is basically what my logic declares to be a criterion for “worship”. Your Quran in contrast is considered a temporal/finite direct expression/manifestation of what is considered eternal and emanating from God – maybe you should reconsider your logic on why the Quran does not have the right to be worshipped. Great, but your Quran is not a creation now is it – according to orthodox Islam it is UNCREATED (which is what the 4-5 quotes i've been pasting from Islamic resrouces, have been declaring this whole time), it is merely being temporarily expressed through creation. If this is your belief concerning the Quran, then logically speaking worshipping your Quran would be worshipping your God, unless you wish to maintain that Allah and His eternal speech are separate entities – which again would delve into polytheism, because your now asserting there are at least 2 separate eternal divine entities – Allah and the Quran. If you guys want to maintain that the Quran is the eternal divine will, without delving into polytheism, logically speaking you should label it a “hypostasis” of God, and then you would have a binatarian concept of God without compromising the monotheism you wish to maintain. You are not addressing the issue. Whether the Quran is a PORTION of the Divine Will still makes it a part of that Will, and therefore must be Divine. Unless you want to argue that God's Will is ONLY divine in its entirety, and that its individual parts are not (which would be a non-sensical statement) then you are really not denying anything I am saying. Furthermore, your claim that writing the Quran on something would make it divine per my logic, fails to grasp the point once again. Writing the Quran on something doesn't make that thing divine, but the words of the Quran which originate from God would be divine no matter what it is written on. And yet this is precisely analagous to the God-man concept. Jesus' body, much like the book which the Quran is written on/in, is not divine. But, Jesus does have a divine nature that is conjoined to his human nature, much like the Quran is divine in essence and yet attached to things that are not divine, but which are temporal and finite WITHOUT MAKING THE TEMPORAL ASPECT OF THE QURAN ETRENAL OR DIVINE!!! In other words your example only further strengthens my argument against you, namely that you can have two distinct essences conjoined together without one essence fusing into the other. Thanks friend for all the help you are giving me! I should also like to point out, that again you’re trying to evade the exclusive parallel draw by your scholars between Christ and the Quran. I hope you realize you are now arguing a heresy according to orthodox Islam which asserts: “The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself” - The scholar asserting this recognises the uncreatedness of the Quran and recognises the Christian concept of the uncreatedness of Christ and thats how he was able to draw this parallel. The “form of creation” expressing/manifesting the eternal divine will is INSEPARABLE from this divine will itself. So here is how it goes according to your Islamic scholars: 1) Creation expressing the eternal divine will – is inseparable from the eternal divine will. Combining this premise with the premise you established, that “the will of God is not separate from God Himself” – and we draw the conclusion: “the ‘form of creation’ directly expressing the eternal divine will, is inseparable from the eternal divine will itself, and is therefore inseparable from God himself”. (And that my friend is the logic behind why we worship Christ - the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth) Christ a walking injeel? Stop analyzing the biblical Christ (which is The Christ which the Quran was paralleled to by your scholars) from an Islamic window. Christ is the walking manifestation of the eternal word of God – The injeel is human speech of inspired human authors that God used to convey his Will, it is not the eternal word of God manifest in scripture – It is not divine scripture it is simply divinely inspired scripture – there is a difference. Please, instead of giving me what you think is acceptable, just deal with what I am saying. Muhammad is not the eternal Quran, but one who embodied its teaching according to the Muslims. BUT, that is not what I am saying about Jesus, NOR is this what Muslims are saying about the Quran. Your refusal to accept the logic behind two distinct essences coexisting simultaneously in one Person or in one book doesn't consititute a refutation. What you think and what actually is are not necessarily the same. So instead of telling me what you think, please demonstrate why a divine being cannot exist as a human being at the same time? Why can't God exist within two categories simultaneously? Thus far, you haven't shown me why that can't be. Until you provide solid arguments against my explanations then you have nothing to offer as a way of counter-response. You only assert that it CANNOT be, but failed to provide any soild logical basis why it cannot. Besides, your claim also undermines the Quran as God's eternal, uncreated speech which makes you a Mutazilah. You’ve fallaciously equated the Christian concept of “God’s word” with “scripture”. Christ did NOT MANIFEST SCRIPTURE, he manifested God’s eternal speech in the same sense orthodox Islam asserts that the Quran maniftesed Allah’s eternal speech. Biblical scripture is NOT eternal, but created since the speech that God used to convey His Will was the human speech of the divinely inspired human authors. The Bible neither says that “Jesus is NOT God” nor that he “manifests scripture” – It specifically asserts that he manifests The eternal word, and it is precisely because he is a manifestation of the eternal divine word, that he is God in essence, since he is a hypostasis of God. John 1: “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God….and The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory”. If you’d like to try and convince me, of how recognizing God’s active principle/agent - The eternal word which emanates from God thus sharing in His divine nature, is ascribing a partner to God, well I’m ready for a good laugh. WRONG! Read the above. A) Christ did not manifest scripture, nor was he a manifestation of scripture – he was a manifestation of the eternal word of God. B) The prophets were not manifestations of scripture NOR were they manifestations of the eternal word – they were the human authors of scripture, who wrote (using created human language) under divine inspiration. This is why your scholars parallel the Quran to Christ because your Quran is a direct expression of God’s eternal word, it is not considered merely Muhammad’s writing that was divinely inspired - the words of your Quran are considered the eternal speech of Allah, and the book and Arabic language is merely the creation expressing this. Are you in fact reading my posts??? If so, then how did you not see this statement: Cyril Glassé continues: "It is a fundamental doctrine of Islam that the Koran, as the speech of God, is eternal and uncreated in its essence and sense, created in its letters and sounds (harf wa jarh). It has been asserted that the doctrine of the uncreated Koran was the result of exposure to the Christian dogma of the Logos; that, as Christians defined Jesus as the Word of God and as having two natures, one human and one Divine in one person, so the Muslims transposed this doctrine by analogy to the Koran as the Word of God made book. The Muslims were indeed aware of the Christian doctrine; the Caliph al-Ma'mun (d. 218/833), who supported the Mu'tazilite theory that the Koran was created, wrote to one of his governors that belief in the uncreatedness of the Koran resembled the Christians when they claim that Jesus was not created because he was the 'Word of God'. During the brief Mu'tazilite ascendancy which began in the Caliphate of al-Ma'mun, belief in the uncreated Koran was temporarily suspended, arousing fierce opposition. The Koran was declared to be created, and those opposed to this view were persecuted during an inquisition called the mihnah (212-232/833-847) into the beliefs of the religious authorities. Yet lawyers and Judges staunchly upheld the dogma of the uncreated Koran, and nurtured it when necessary in secret. Ibn Hanbal went further, and declared that the Koran was uncreated from 'cover to cover', that is, also in its letters and its sounds. In this he was certainly not intending to imitate the Monophysites, but he was flogged for his beliefs. When the mihnah came to an end, the doctrine of the uncreatedness was restored, and has not been challenged since, in the Sunni world. The Kharijites differ from the Sunnis on this point, and in their dogmas the Koran is entirely created, which is also true for the Shi'ites, both Twelve-Imam and Zaydi, whose theology in many ways is an extension of that of the Mu'tazilites." (Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, [Harper San Francisco, second edition 1991, 1999], pp. 231-232; bold emphasis ours) Do you see the author's statements that the Muslims were aware of the Christian doctrine of Christ as the Word and that their exposure to it influenced their view of the Quran? Do you see where it says that the Caliph al-Ma'mun said that the belief in the Quran's uncreatedness resembled Chrstian beliefs in Christ? I hope this time you do see it since I am getting tired of constantly reposting these qoutes. Your appeal to a "Preserved Book" is further evidence that you really do not have a response. What does the Preserved Tablet have to do with the Quran being the SPEECH of Allah, and therefore uncreated? To say that Allah wrote his Speech down in a Heavenly tablet and that the Quran is only a portion of it does nothing to refute the fact that THE QURAN IS STILL UNCREATED. Are you again erroneously assuming that the words inscribed in the Heavenly Tablet are eternal ONLY in their entirety, but that portions or parts of those inscribed words are not eternal? I know that this is not what you are saying which only shows that your statement that the Quran is only a PORTION of the heavenly tablet proves absolutely nothing. You are proving to me that you are indeed not reading my posts carefully. It is quite obvious that you have no response and so need to ignore my statements as if this will deny the facts I have presented. This only shows that you have run out of anything substantial to say. Let me AGAIN repeat what you chose to conveniently ignore: "The Qur'an is God's speech, which he uttered, AND IT IS UNCREATED. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. And who says: 'The Qur'an is God's speech', and stops at that point without adding 'uncreated', speaks even more infamously than the latter. Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur'an recitation would be created, the Qur'an itself, however, God's speech, is a Jahmit, too. And who doesn't declare all these people as unbelievers, is like them." (according to Ibn Abu Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952, vol. I, p. 29; transl. Dr. Christopher Heger) And: ... Ibn Hanbal went further, and declared that the Koran was uncreated from 'cover to cover', that is, also in its letters and its sounds. In this he was certainly not intending to imitate the Monophysites, but he was flogged for his beliefs. When the mihnah came to an end, the doctrine of the uncreatedness was restored, and has not been challenged since, in the Sunni world. The Kharijites differ from the Sunnis on this point, and in their dogmas the Koran is entirely created, which is also true for the Shi'ites, both Twelve-Imam and Zaydi, whose theology in many ways is an extension of that of the Mu'tazilites." (Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, [Harper San Francisco, second edition 1991, 1999], pp. 231-232; bold emphasis ours) I am sure you will not say that Ibn Hanbal is not Orthodox, and yet he fails to make your distinctions regarding God's Will, the Preserved Tablet, and the Quran being only a portion of that tablet and will. He clearly says the Quran IS UNCREATED. Do I really need to quote more to prove my point? I certainly hope not. Right, that's why the debate isn't about when God's WILL began, the whole debate is when it BECAME ENFLESHED, WHEN HIS WILL/WORD TOOK ON A HUMAN BODY. Thanks for further strengthening my case for the Logic of God Incarnate. If God's uncreated, divine Speech can become a book, than it can also become a man. Furthermore, the Quran as God's Word (in your view anyway) is an expression of the Divine will no doubt, but so is Christ. Again, your claims are only strengthening the analogy between the Quran and Christ. BINGO!!!! You hit the jackpot!!!! Precisely, God's Will is eternal, but the book which contains it or expresses it is not. Again, God's Will is eternal, but the human body which enfleshed that Will is not eternal. So thanks again for demonstrating how two distinct essences, one eternal and the other temporal, can coexist simultaneously in one entity!!! So why did you even try to object to the Incarnation on logical grounds when your explanations of the Quran have demonstrated what I said to you in the first place? Namely, that there is no inherent logical contradiction in the Christian belief that Christ is the God-man, just as from the Muslim view there is no contradiction with believing in the Quran as the God-book (I know that this is my own expression regarding the uncreatedness and the createdness of the divine Quran, but it serves to highlight the logical outworking of the Muslim position on the Quran). I seriously need to ask whether you know what you are saying at this point. Sorry to burst your bubble, the debate did not hinge on when or where the words of the Quran were created, but whether THE QURAN ITSELF WAS UNCREATED OR CREATED. Please carefully reread my posts where I cite Muslim scholars who plainly say that the Quran is uncreated. So please enough with the red herrings and evasionary tactics. Please do look at the link carefully since it completely fails to refute what I posted. In fact, he candidly admits this when he says: ”Both the Bible and the Noble Quran used the word "more", which doesn't give a specific number. I personally don't care what the Bible claims. But as to the Noble Quran, I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER as to why Allah Almighty chose to say "or more". It is probably referring to Prophet Jonah (Nuh in Arabic) peace be upon him meeting 100,000 people at first, and then the number increased later on. But I am not certain if that's what it really means... I know one thing for certain: Even though the use of "or more" in Noble Verse 37:147 IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN; at least for now, but this still doesn't mean that Allah Almighty doesn't know about every atom of things that occurs in the Heavens and Earth:” So this is what you appeal to as a response to my questions regarding the ignorance of Allah?? Please provide something of substance instead of appealing to an article that admits there are problems with the Quran and only repeats links galore as if this refutes anything I said. I am seriously doubting whether you even read that link. It is becoming obvious that you are willing to say and link to anything as long as it gives the impression that you are actually dealing with the issues, when in fact you are not. You are comparing apples and oranges. Jews and Christians believe that the Holy Bible is God's inspired Word revealed through human agents, using human language. Hence, the Bible is not eternal, but created since the speech that God used to convey his Will was the human speech of the inspired human authors. But this is not what Muslims believe about the Quran. They believe that the Quran is the divinely preexistent dictated Word of God which was later given to Muhammad, and therefore it is not Muhammad's speech which God inspired him to say and then record. The Holy Bible didn't preexist its earthly composition or origin. So when you can't answer a question you resort to making fun? I guess you forgot that IT WAS YOU who said that people of other faiths also believed that their scriptures preexisted. So when I ask you to produce evidence for this claim in regards to the Christian view of their scriptures, all you do is mock and ridicule. A very nice, intellectual exchange. I need to correct you again. Muslim DO believe that Jesus is the Word of God, even though they understand it differently from the way Christians understand the expression. See for instance S. 3:39, 45 and 4:171. And here are some hadiths added for good measure: ... You better go to Jesus, the Spirit of Allah AND HIS WORD... (Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0373:http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0373 ) Your straw man caricaturization of my position does nothing to support your argument against the logic of the Incarnation. So, please enough of the straw men and deal with the quotes I cited which say the Quran is uncreated, while being recorded in a book which is created. You need to stop shifting the topic to the Preserved Tablet since this does nothing to support your case. I really don't believe what you are saying here. You are again committing the fallacy that it is either all or nothing, that the parts are not divine but only the entirety of attributes in unison are. So God's attribute of mercy by itself is not divine? God's attribute of justice by itself is not divine? God's attribute of love by itself is not divine, etc., etc? So if an attribute in isolation from the rest of the attributes is not divine then what is it? Is God's attribute of mercy human or angelic? So is God's speech human speech, angelic speech OR IS IT DIVINE SPEECH? And if the Quran is God's speech THEN HOW CAN IT NOT BE DIVINE? Finally, I didn't say that the Quran as God's speech IS ALL OF GOD, since God is more than mere speech. But, God's speech IS NO LESS THAN GOD as are his other attributes. It seems that I need to post again those quotes from Muslim scholars since you obviously chose to ignore them: Muhammad ‘Abduh, the renowned and highly respected Egyptian scholar of the early part of the 20th century, reaffirms the necessary existence of God, His essence and His attributes. ”But as for whether the attributes are other or more than the essence, whether speech is an attribute other than the import of the heavenly books within the Divine knowledge, and whether hearing and seeing in God are other than His knowledge of things heard and seen, and other such controversial issues, of the pundits and the contentions of the schools—all these are questions impenetrable to us, beyond the wit of human mind to attain.”[20] Still he plainly states that the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, "ETERNALLY OF HIS ESSENCE".[21] On the other hand the Qur'an is created in the sense that it is manifest in the world of creation through writings and sounds.[22] According to the distinguished twentieth-century Muslim scholar, Fazlur Rahman: ”... the moral law and religious values are God's command, and although they are not identical with God entirely, they are part of Him. The Qur'an is, therefore, PURELY DIVINE. ... [T]he Word was given with the inspiration itself. The Qur'an IS THUS THE PURE DIVINE WORD, but, of course, it is equally intimately related to the inmost personality of the Prophet Muhammad whose relationship to it cannot be mechanically conceived like that of a record. The Divine Word flowed through the Prophet's heart.”[23] What interests us here also is Fazlur Rahman's claim that Islamic orthodoxy, while correctly recognizing the divine nature of the Qur'an, did not, or was unable to, reckon with the fact that the Qur'an is also the word of Muhammad. He states: ”... the Qur'an is entirely the Word of God and, in an ordinary sense, also entirely the word of Muhammad. The Qur'an obviously holds both, for if it insists that it has come to the ‘heart’ of the Prophet, how can it be external to him?”[24] Nevertheless, he adds, Muhammad cannot be identified with God or a part of Him, since associating a creature with God is shirk ("association" or idolatry).[25] Mahmoud Ayoub In his essay "The Word of God in Islam," Mahmoud Ayoub of Temple University continues his efforts to promote dialogue and better understanding between Muslims and Christians. At one point he responds to the first part of the prologue of the Gospel according to John thus: ”Muslims have also for the most part affirmed that the Qur'an IN ITS ESSENCE IS THE ETERNAL AND UNCREATED WORD OF GOD. John tells us further that the Word was with God, but where we differ is with John's next statement, that is, that the Word is God. The great theological controversy over the Qur'an, a controversy which remains unresolved to this day, concerns the relationship of the Qur'an, as the Word of God, to God Himself. To my knowledge no one has asserted that the Qur'an is God.”[26] He continues a few pages later: ”Many have written that what is analogous in the Islamic tradition to the Trinity in Christianity are the divine attributes. From the theological point of view this may be true, because, as al-Ash'ari reminded us, THEY ARE "NEITHER HE NOR ARE THEY OTHER THAN HE." Therefore, divine attributes share in that aspect of ministry ....”[27] http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/god_his ... _quran.htm So according to the above Muslims, the Quran is the Divine Word, is eternally of God's essence. Asharis also said that Allah's attributes, which the Quran is one, are not Allah BUT THEY ARE ALSO NOT OTHER THAN ALLAH. Hopefully you will carefully read these this time around. First, the essences are distinct, but not separable, since they have been united together in the person of Christ. This why I said that the essences were conjoined without fusion. Second, the proper analogy to the Incarnation is NOT a square and a triangle, even though you can use it if you like. The triangle is used in Christian circles to illustrate the Trinity. A circle is attached to one of the corners of the triangle to demonstrate the union of the two natures in Christ. That is why only one of the corners has a circle attached to it since only the Son took on human nature. Note, I said attached, not fused inside the triangle. Returning to your ORIGINAL analogy of the square and a circle, simply place the circle on top of the square and see what you get. Two distinct objects attached to one another without either object losing any of its distinct qualities or shape. Furthermore, I do not distinguish between the divine and human words of Christ for the simple fact that words are used by a Person to express and reveal himself to us. Since Christ is only one Person, his words reflect his personality and the experiences he underwent as the God-man. But now I need to return the favor. Do you distinguish the human Arabic characters used to write down the Quran from the those words found in the heavenly tablet? Take it a step further. Before these words were written down, in what form did they exist? Now that they have been written down, do they cease to be the divine, uncreated speech of God? If they do not cease to be divine, then are you saying that the Arabic text written down by men within time and space are also divine and uncreated? I would really like you to answer these for me instead of evading them. I have explained it by using your own analogies to prove my point. Just as a square remains a square when attached to a circle, God can still retain his divine attributes while also taking on human attributes, since the human and divine attributes do not FUSE INTO EACH OTHER, just like the square and the circle DO NOT FUSE INTO EACH OTHER when being attached to one another. The divine nature didnt take up human attributes, nor did the human nature take up divine attributes, the two natures remained distinct and unchanged, yet they were inseparable within the person of Christ. You need to please try and deal with what I say, and not attack straw man. I didn't say that angels "hypostatically unionize", but said that angels CAN TAKE A HUMAN FORM (NOT BECOME HUMAN BEINGS) WITHOUT CEASING TO BE ANGELS. Let me repeat my point. If it is possible for limited creatures to appear as men, then why can't God? I then said TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER. If God can appear as a man without ceasing to be God, THEN WHY CAN'T HE BECOME A MAN WITHOUT CEASING TO BE GOD? You haven't shown us why he cannot. Please show me anywhere in this verse which says that Gabriel is the Spirit. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. So this fails to prove your point. Please try to deal with what I ask for, not simply post passages which do not address the issues.
NONE of these passages say that the Spirit is Gabriel. It is so obvious that there is not a single verse in the entire Quran where Gabriel is called the Spirit SO YOU HAD TO INSERT THE WORD GABRIEL WITHIN PARENTHESES IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CONNECTION!!! So again, please show me a verse where Gabriel is said to be the spirit, the Faithful Spirit, the Holy Spirit. It isn't there. If you want, I will send you a host of verses and comments by Muslims that do not agree at all with your position that Gabriel is the Spirit. Then you haven't been reading anything that I have written, since I cited Muslim sources which identify the Quran as eternal, uncreated. Obviously, the pages, the cover, the ink are not eternal. Therefore, the Quran is the God-book, it is one of the divine attributes of God which became a book. And I am glad that you stated that the essence of God and of a book are DISTINCT, which indireclty concedes the point I have been trying to make you see, namely that two distinct essences (God and book) can be united or conjoined together as one (the Quran). So what was your objection the Logic of the Incarnation? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I will discontinue this discussion unless and until you can provide meaningful rebuttals since this discussion has seriously degenerated. Im not going to waste my time running in circles, for someone who simply wants to argue for arguments sake. I will follow the words of the true Christ when he says “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you…Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit…No man can come to me (Christ), except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day…” And the only way you will ever understand the truth is if you “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you…” “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.” AMEN Peace |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame