Category Archives: Samuel Green

Cairo Church Bombing in Perspective

Indeed, it is a tragedy whenever lives are lost. We all grieve when the lives of the innocent are taken. Unfortunately, there are people among us who thrive off of the deaths of others, who use the blood of the innocent as a means for their political, theological and financial motives. The loss of life in Cairo to a Church bombing is awful, as is the loss of life in Istanbul from the twin bombings in that city. Yet, we must keep perspective. Inasmuch as some people enjoy and thrive off of a persecution complex, the world of Christianity had a greater disaster with many more lives lost this week. However, those lives did not matter. The deaths of some Christians matter more than the deaths of others. In Nigeria, a Church collapsed killing as much as 160 people. Yet, since it was not a bomb, and because no Muslims were involved, the deaths of 160 Christians did not matter.


160 or more Nigerian Christians are Dead from Church Collapse

Acts17/ David Wood? Silent about Nigeria, but loud about Cairo.

Answering Muslims’ Tony Costa? Silent about Nigeria.

McLatchie? Silent about Nigeria.

Nabeel Qureishi? Silent about Nigeria. Why the silence?

Do they only care about Christians if they’re not African? Do they care only if a Muslim is involved? They can’t get donation money or fame out of truly caring about their Christian brethren. Then again, they probably have short memories and while quick to put the blame of the Cairo bombing on Muslims and Islam (without evidence), a little bit of history goes a long way:

Egypt’s general prosecutor on Monday opened probe on former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly’s reported role in the New Year’s Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed, an Egyptian lawyer told Al Arabiya.

Laywer Ramzi Mamdouh said he had presented a proclamation to Egyptian prosecutor Abd al-Majid Mahmud to investigate news media reports suggesting that the former interior ministry had masterminded the deadly church attack with the intent to blame it on Islamists, escalate government crackdown on them, and gain increased western support for the regime.

Then again, if they can’t be bothered to care about Nigerian Christians, why should we expect them to care about anything other than themselves?

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Origin Stories of the Disciples

The origin stories of the disciples is perhaps some of the most contentious passages of the New Testament Gospels. Earlier today I had a conversation with Samuel Green on this very topic, which led to the conversation below:


One Gospel – Matthew indicates that Jesus initially meets Peter and Andrew beside the Sea of Galilee casting their nets. John 1 disagrees and has Andrew go fetch Peter, bring him to Jesus and there they meet with Jesus near the River Jordan. One version has Jesus going to them (Sea of Galilee), the other has them coming to Jesus (River Jordan). Quite the contradiction!

and God knows best.

Christian to Samuel Green: “You clearly don’t know anything about Islam”

Well this is embarrassing. Pastor Samuel Green who specializes in “ministering to Muslims” ran into quite an awkward argument recently with a fellow but prominent London based Christian missionary. The argument revolves around Green’s lack of education when it comes to Islam, which has upset and embarrassed fellow Christians as Green prides himself on his “engaging with Islam”. Someone had to burst his bubble and it was not pretty:



We’d like to thank the Christian community for finally bringing to light what we all know about Samuel – he doesn’t know anything about Islam.

and God knows best.

Refutation: Where Did Jesus Say, “I Am God, Worship Me”? #2

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After responding to David Wood’s article, located here, I came across Samuel Green’s addendum. In his presentation, he appealed to the Gospel narrative of Christ before the Sanhedrin located in Matthew 26:62-66, which reads:

“Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.”

Samuel’s point being that Jesus calls himself the son of God and therefore by admission, claims to be God:

“In a recent debate I was told that Jesus never said, “I am God worship me”. At that time I did not answer with the above verses but now I think I should have. The reason is that in these verses Jesus proclaims his divinity and that all people will worship him. First Jesus says he is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God.”

The problem with this assertion, is that the title, “Son of God” is not a claim of divinity. It’s simple to prove, if we return to the Old Testament, specifically to Bereishit (Genesis), we have the exact phrase being used for the children of Adam:

” When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. ” – Genesis 6:1-2 [NIV, same as Samuel’s version].

If therefore, the claim that anyone who is a son of God, is a God, then Moses, under inspiration from YHWH, when authoring the Book of Genesis claimed all the sons of Adam to be Gods. However, we know that this cannot be the case. Either it is that Samuel Green accepts the phrase, “Son of God” is not a title of divinity, or if he does assert that it is a title of divinity, then he must also bear witness that he worships Adam’s children. The case can even be furthered, if it is that the title, “son of God” is equivalent to being a God, then Samuel’s YHWH, has proclaimed to have many sons and therefore Samuel would have to accept he has many Gods:

“Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son” – Exodus (Shemot) 4:22.

“They will come with weeping;  they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water  on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” – Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu) 31:9.

Mr. Green however, has seen it fit to distinguish Jesus’ claim to the son of Godship as something unique and prophesied to mean a divine Son of God. He does this by appealing to a version of Psalms 2:12, which reads:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

The problem with this however is that the phrase, “kiss the son”, is an interpolation, found in the Syriac MSS, however absent from the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Vulgate, Ethiopic MSS and the Chaldee codices:

It is remarkable that the word son ( bar, a Chaldee word) is not found in any of the versions except the Syriac, nor indeed any thing equivalent to it.

The Chaldee, Vulgate, Septuagint, Arabic, and Ethiopic, have a term which signifies doctrine or discipline: “Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry with you,” and especially that in so pure a piece of Hebrew as this poem is, a Chaldeeword should have been found; bar, instead of ben, which adds nothing to the strength of the expression or the elegance of the poetry. I know it is supposed that bar is also pure Hebrew, as well as Chaldee; but as it is taken in the former language in the sense of purifying, the versions probably understood it so here. Embrace that which is pure; namely, the doctrine of God.” – Adam Clarke Biblical Exegesis, Psalms 2:12.

Seeing as that line of evidence for asserting Jesus’ divinity through sonship is faulty, if not wholly fraudulent, and with possibly knowing this, Samuel Green then attempts to qualify his eisegesis by appealing to Daniel 7:13-14, which reads:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:13-14.

Samuel interprets this passage as meaning the son of man (son of God) would be worshipped:

“Then Jesus says he is “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This language is again from the earlier prophets, the prophet Daniel, and is referring to the divine man who will receive the worship of God.”

The problem is, the word used in Daniel 7:14, doesn’t refer to worship, when we return to the Hebrew we find that the word used is פּלח, which means to revere, serve or minister. That is not to say that it can’t mean worship, but there is a contextual basis for this particular definition. It refers to authority, as persons have to revere, serve or minister to this person. Therefore to present it in a historical context, it is equivalent to the modern use of, “His worship the mayor”. A common term, referring to the respect and authority of a dignitary:

“often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.” – Dictionary Definition.

There is a distinction between the term used in Daniel, referring to power, authority, reverence and service/ ministering, and with this word שׁחה, which is used when referring to worship of a deity, as demonstrated below:

“Then the man bowed down and worshiped (שׁחה) the Lord” – Genesis 24:26.

 and I bowed down and worshiped (שׁחה) the Lord. I praised the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who had led me on the right road to get the granddaughter of my master’s brother for his son.” – Genesis 24:48.

With these evidences having been presented, the texts and Hebrew examined, there is no doubt that Samuel Green has grossly misrepresented the Old Testament’s texts, as well as misinterpreting verses to project the view that Jesus is a God. Simple examination of his evidences, have rendered his argument void of any intellectual foundation, solely based on conjecture and most likely can be labelled as an act of gross desperation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

Refutation: Reading Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 in context.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Samuel Green has sought to defend the Christian position of salvation by substitutional sacrifice. That being  that sin can be dispensed of through the death of another human being (Christ as the sacrificial lamb). At first, he references the two verses which negate such a teaching:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16, NIV)

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (Ezekiel 18:20, NIV)

At this point, before I dissect the eisegesis of Samuel, we need to properly lay a foundation of the views which some of the more notable and erudite Christian exegetes themselves have taken, we read from Adam Clarke’s Exegesis the follow excerpt:

“None shall die for another’s crimes, none shall be saved by another’srighteousness. Here is the general judgment relative to the righteousness andunrighteousness of men, and the influence of one man’s state on that of another; particularly in respect to their moral conduct.”

We also read from Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Entire Bible that the persons who are punished are due to their own sinning brought about by themselves:

But this people that bore the iniquity of their fathers had not done that which is lawful and right, and therefore justly suffered for their own sin and had no reason to complain of God’s proceedings against them as at all unjust, though they had reason to complain of the bad example their fathers had left them as very unkind. “

Seeing as the Torah (Old Testament) is primarily the book of the Jews, it would be inappropriate to leave off their understanding of the verses referenced, we read from Rabbi Rashi’s commentary, the following excerpts from his exegesis of Devarim (Deuteronomy):

“Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons: [I.e.,] by the testimony of [their] sons. But, if you say [that it means that fathers shall not be put to death] because of the sins of their sons, it has already been stated, “each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.”

With these statements in mind, we now have a proper understanding from traditional Christian sources and Judaic sources as to the proper meaning of these verses. Samuel however, sought to circumvent the orthodox interpretations of these verses by claiming that he himself had a proper understanding based on Judaic principles:

“This, however, is not the case because both of these verses are referring to a person living under the covenant of the Torah (the Law of Moses). Deuteronomy 24:16 is part of the Torah itself and Ezekiel 18:20 is addressing the Israelites who were living under the Torah.”

Take note, that he’s claiming that he is representing the orthodox Judaic understanding/ context of the verses, yet nowhere, does he cite, reference or quote a single Rabbinic Judaic source to qualify his statements. It should be understood, that if he is attempting to represent the views of the people who lived under and held to the practise of the Torah, that he should atleast present one authoritative source from among these people to make extant their views. Instead, what he does is continue to quote verses, without referencing the Judaic interpretations. This therefore is a case of intentional decontextualization of a scripture by referencing a group of persons with specific beliefs, yet alienating their positions by transposing his own mendacious ideas about their belief on said scripture. He references the following verses as being representative of his position:

“(H)e must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 4:28-31, NIV)

For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. (Leviticus 17:11, NIV)”

He then interprets this in the following manner:

“This is why a lot of the Torah teaches about priests, sacrifices and the tabernacle/temple where the sacrifices were offered. The Torah teaches individual responsibility and forgiveness through a substitute sacrifice that bears our sin…..hese verses are not saying there is no sacrifice that can bear our sin. Instead they are saying that we are individually responsible for our sins and need to seek forgiveness through God’s provision of a substitute sacrifice that can bear our sin.”

Let’s examine his statements. To begin with, Samuel has mistakenly supposed that the animals bare the sin of the one who is doing the  sacrifice or of the one for whom the sacrifice is done. Recall, that nowhere is this stated in the verses he referenced. Note that the quotes he references makes it quite explicitly known that these sacrifices are an atonement. This is where his first problem begins, his understanding of what an atonement is, has been severely perverted. For example, if we follow through on his logic, then an act of atonement is one in which something bares the sin on behalf of the sinner:

“Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.” – Exodus 25:17.

In this scenario, we have a cloth, a cover becoming a source of atonement for the Jewish peoples. Nothing is being sacrificed, nor is anything perishing, suffering, or being tortured to bear the sin of a sinner. Rather a piece of cloth has become a means through which sins can be forgiven. Don’t take my word on it, Adam Clarke, the Christian exegete confirms this, he says:

“This propitiatory covering, as it might well be translated, was a type of Christ, the great propitiation, whose satisfaction fully answers the demands of the law, covers our transgressions, and comes between us and the curse we deserve. “

Note the conditions that are laid forth. The cloth has to accede to the demands of God’s law (that is, it has to be tailored, or exacted by those who are executing the criteria [law] as commanded by God), when that is done, those acts which fulfill the criteria as sent by God, then covers or atones for the sins of those who carry out the commands of God. From this we then see that the act of properly abiding by God’s command as an act of atonement, delivers us from His divine punishment. If we continue onwards, we read from Exodus (Shemot) 30:11-15, the following:

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives.”

In this case, Samuel’s God, is taking money as a form of expiation for sin. Note, no one is suffering, no one is being tortured, no one is being killed for sin. Money is being used as a form of expiation and as it is, in this case, just like the piece of cloth aforementioned, money is like a Christ here as well, being waged for the gift of life.

Where does this therefore leave us? What it does is indicate that Samuel’s understanding of what atonement is defined as, is incorrect. Atonement is not substitutional sacrifices, rather as I have demonstrated, atonement entails enacting certain criteria as set out by God in a way which sanctifies His divine commands. In the first scenario I presented, we see the stringent conditions for the cover, with God specifying what dimensions the cloth and gold have to be. In the second scenario we see that the certain condition to be undertaken is the amount of money to be  collected and from whom, that is, if they wished for their lives to be preserved.

Note, that nothing has to suffer or die, ergo, no blood is spilled, therefore nothing has died for the sins of anyone. Rather atonement as we can see, is not that something has bared the sin of another, but that atonement is a means through which one gains God’s forgiveness and mercy. Just like prayer, or fasting, these are also means of atonement, where we hold true to God’s divine commands, with whichever criteria He denotes as being the measuring stick to qualify our acts of repentance.

In conclusion, Samuel has not provided a strong argument to demonstrate that one object or person, or for the sake of argument, an animal can bear the sin of another. Rather what he has allowed us to demonstrate is that the sacrifices we make, whether with blood or gold, money or otherwise, are means of atonement because God has dictated them and they fulfil His criteria for forgiving us of our acts of inequity (sins).  In order for his point to be valid, he has to demonstrate that the proprietary cloth or the shekels collected by Moses had to suffer and die, blood had to magically spew from them, so that a price of sin was paid, as he clearly alludes to this in his referencing of the commands in Leviticus and with his mentioning of the alleged death of Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]