Pada suatu kali banyak orang berduyun-duyun mengikuti Yesus dalam perjalanan-Nya. Sambil berpaling Ia berkata kepada mereka: “Jikalau seorang datang kepada-Ku dan ia tidak membenci bapanya, ibunya, isterinya, anak-anaknya, saudara-saudaranya laki-laki atau perempuan, bahkan nyawanya sendiri, ia tidak dapat menjadi murid-Ku. Barangsiapa tidak memikul salibnya dan mengikut Aku, ia tidak dapat menjadi murid-Ku. Sebab siapakah di […]
Satu hari di sebuah musim panas aku sedang membersihkan bunga-bunga liar dari halaman rumah Clark (di Wheaton, Illinois). Gordon selalu punya pekerjaan bagi mahasiwa-mahasiswa yang kehabisan uang. Gordon duduk di kursi yang berada di halaman sambil membaca buku. Kemudian seorang Saksi Yehovah datang dengan sebuah fonograf (fonograf lazim digunakan kala itu). Di dalam disk pada […]
Di bawah ini adalah terjemahan Bab 8 Biografi Gordon H. Clark terkait perdebatannya dengan van Til. “Sidang [1946] tersebut mendukung penahbisan Dr. Gordon H. Clark dengan suara hampir mencapai dua banding satu. Seorang anggota fakultas Seminari Westminster dengan pidato yang berapi-api menyatakan bahwa tidak boleh ada seorang pun yang berpikir bahwa apa yang disebut kasus […]
Berikut adalah kutipan salah satu bab dari buku Biografi Clark, yang ditulis oleh Doug Douma. Perhatikan bahwa yang dimaksud dengan Keberatan adalah dokumen yang ditulis oleh van Til dkk untuk menunjukkan bahwa keputusan Presbiteri Philadelphia OPC untuk menabiskan Gordon H. Clark sebagai pendeta tidak punya dasar kuat dan harus dicabut. Sedangkan Jawaban adalah sebuah dokumen […]
“Sidang [1946] tersebut mendukung penahbisan Dr. Gordon H. Clark dengan suara hampir mencapai dua banding satu. Seorang anggota fakultas Seminari Westminster dengan pidato yang berapi-api menyatakan bahwa tidak boleh ada seorang pun yang berpikir bahwa apa yang disebut kasus Clark telah berakhir, dan bahwa dia akan terus berjuang sampai ‘napas penghabisannya’. Mereka menolak penahbisan Tuan […]
“Seperti yang Anda ketahui, saya aktif pada awal tahun tiga puluhan untuk berupaya menyadarkan jemaat-jemaat AS tentang keseriusan kemurtadan di gereja itu. Saya memiliki andil dalam [pembentukan] Reformed Fellowship/Persekutuan Reformed, dan penggantinya, Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union (yang namanya kurang tepat). Saya tidak hanya berbicara di Penna., tetapi saya melakukan perjalanan sejauh N.D. dalam upaya tersebut. […]
Atas dasar ini Dr. Van Til menyimpulkan bahwa pembelaan yang disajikan di atas terhadap tuduhan bahwa doktrin Tritunggal bertentangan dengan diri sendiri, merupakan pembelaan yang tidak berdasar. Ia bahkan menyarankan orang untuk tidak perlu menerima hukum kontradiksi. Pada halaman 10 dari silabus yang sama ia menyatakan, “Hukum pemikiran dan hukum etika manusia tidak abadi dan […]
Sekarang kita coba mundur dari segi waktu, menyeberangi ulang Lautan Atlantik menuju ke Belanda, dan dalam rangka mempersiapkan diri memahami pandangan Dr. Cornelius Van Til dari Westminster Seminary, kita akan membahas teologi Herman Bavinck.[1] Menjelang awal bukunya Bavinck menegaskan “…gagasan bahwa orang percaya mampu mengerti dan memahami secara intelektual misteri-misteri yang diwahyukan, sama tidak alkitabiahnya. […]
Beberapa waktu lalu beta mengikuti sebuah kegiatan perkuliahan. Dalam perkuliahan tersebut sang dosen begitu gemas dengan pemerintah. Pemerintah dipandang tidak logis karena terkait Covid-19 mengeluarkan himbauan jaga jarak, sekaligus hindari kerumunan. Menurut dosen tersebut kalau sudah ada himbauan jaga jarak, berarti otomatis kerumunan terhindari. Jadi pemerintah tidak perlu mengeluarkan himbauan yang redundant seperti itu. Di […]
Filsafat Yunani dimulai pada tanggal 28 Mei 585 S.M., pada jam 6:13 sore. Apa itu Filsafat? Di balik penegasan yang setengah serius dan setengah jenaka ini mengintai sejumlah masalah serius yang perlu diperkenalkan kepada pembaca. Pemula akan bertanya, ‘Apa itu Filsafat? Apakah benar bahwa tidak ada filsafat sebelum tahun 585 S.M.? Alasan misterius apa gerangan yang […]
Untuk membeli versi elektronik buku ini silahkan klik gambar atai teks ini!
Futility over Futility 
SEpiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ni blog……mendekati kehancuran ni agama kristen….
Nyenyeh, bisakah anda berkomentar yang ada kaitan dengan yang saya tuls? Terima kasih!
Kamu ga nulis apa2, itu cuman link youtube, komentar kamu mana? bisanya cuman copas aja ya kamu? atau ide kamu emang udah tumpul untuk menggugurkan aqidah islam…………….
Ya.. saya salah tulis. Seharusnya saya tulis ” bisakah anda berkomentar yang ada kaitan dengan yang di bahas dalam posting ini?” Saya minta maaf! Nah, sekarang silahkan komentari apa yang dibahas dalam posting ini!
Terima kasih!
I just finished watching your video myself, and I must say there are a lot of holes and contradictions in your allegation.
Good, then let us see them!
Firstly, you argue that the poisoned meat was what killed him. This isn’t true, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) died 4 years after this poisoned meat incident. His companion who did eat from the meat died instantly, as the Hadith states:
“With him was Bishr b. al-Bara b. Marur, who, like the messenger of God, took some of it; Bishr, however, swallowed it, while the messenger of God spat it out saying, “This bone informs me that it has been poisoned.” He asked, “What led you to do this?” She said: “How you have afflicted my people is not hidden from you. So I said, “If he is a prophet, he will be informed; but if he is a king, I shall be rid of him””. The prophet forgave her. Bishr died of the food he had eaten.”
Interesting twist indeed! But you take out of equation the fact that Muhammad spat it out and the companion ate it. So, it follows that what gets to him was only a small fraction of the poison consumed by the companion! If you put that into the equation, that Muhammad was killed by the poison is reasonable.
As we can see, the poison was designed to have immediate effects. If the Prophet (peace be upon him) was truly affected by the poison, then he would’ve died instantly. He didn’t, despite feeling some pain from it.
See above!
Secondly, the Prophet did not die by having his aorta cut. He did mention feeling pain in his chest, but it wasn’t because of a severed artery. Having your aorta cut results in instant death, so it’s impossible to have it cut while still being alive to complain about it.
And here you forgot the hadith qouted by David! If what David says is true, then what Muhammad said was wrong then! By your own standard that is!
I think this should be a nice refutation of your video, wouldn’t you agree, David?
It is an interesting twist but not a refutation as you see above!
Me : i did, like you have done….thanks…
Meaning?
I just replied and my reply is in bold under your posting!
The poison was designed to have high and immediate effects, and it’s true, his companion died instantly, and how many years later the poison have to kill Muhammad? it had been more than 4 years since then. There might be a little amount of poison swallowed, and he felt pain but he did’nt die. And when his death is around, he said that he felt some pain just the same when he was poisoned by the jews woman.
It seems to me that you need elaboration. I hope you have learned some measure of Chemistry at school. I also hope that you understand that the effect of lower concentration of a substance is not the same as the effect of the same substance in higher concentration. So, if that principle is true, it is to be expected that Muhammad lived for another 4 years because he did not swallow all the poison, only a fraction of it. Had he swallowed it all, he would have died instantly. The question is not the design here because no matter how good you design something, its implementation does not necessarily follow the design. Indeed the design of the poison might be deadly, but Muhammad only took a little fraction of it. Hence, the design does not have the expected implication. This is what you left out in your equation!
How did Muhammad know, that he was being trapped? And he knew that poison, and he warned his companion, but it was too late for him, then died.
Don’t you see what the jews woman said, if Muhammad was a messenger of Allah, then he would have been safe, but if he was not, then he would have died as his companion.
And he did die like his companion in a sense that he died of the poison!
How Muhammad knew? Who had told him not to eat the meat? it was the meat itself who had told him not to eat it, Allah help him to avoid the danger, if only Muhammad not the prophet of Allah, he might have died as his friend.
Do you believe what he said? Please pay attention to what happened! He ate, had put the meat in his mouth, and suddenly he said the meat told him something. One can now that there is something wrong with a food entering one’s mouth. And that is even more pointed when the poison was designed to be deadly. My friend who came from an Island near Timor told me what happened to his father who used to take palm sap (nira) every morning and evening or late afternoon. One day afternoon he went to take the sap. As usual, when he felt thirsty, he took some of the sap to drink. Just after the sap entered his mouth he felt there was something really wrong with the sap and he spat it out. It was proven to be poisoned by someone. That guy’s father could have easily said, “the sap told me that there was poison mixed into the sap” and counted as a prophet by this standard.
Just replied with bold fonts!