URINE DRINKING IN CHRISTIAN BIBLE
Refutation: MUHAMMAD
AND THE MUSLIMS FROM URAYNAH
By:
Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد
بن وحيد
بسم الله الرحمن
الرحيم
الحمدلله
رب العالمين والصلوة
والسلام على اشرف
الانبياء وسيدالمرسلين
نبينا محمد صل
ا لله عليه وعلى
آله واصحابه وازواجه
اجمعين - امابعد
Thanks to be Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.
Christian missionary Silas of website “answering-islam.org” carry the most hostility towards Islaam, Glorious Qur’aan and Prophet of Islaam. He is notorious for making something (lies) out of nothing. In this treatise we will inSha Allaah refute his claim[s] published under title: MUHAMMAD AND THE MUSLIMS FROM URAYNAH by showing that his (Silas) sham god Jesus served his own urine in a party being drunk (btw Jesus was a drunkard), and thereafter Jesus preached people to drink urine. Many Muslim websites have already refuted the absurd article authored by Silas; therefore we will focus on proving Jesus’ teaching of urine drinking, which explains that why some Christians drink urine.
We read in New Testament,
Gospel according to John,
chapter 7
7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus
stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
7:38 He that
believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water.
In John
verse 7:37 Jesus, after getting drunk offering people to drink his urine,
thereafter, Jesus in John 7:38 explicitly teaching/preaching/telling people
that those who believe in me can drink urine and their bellies shall flow
rivers of living water. We all know that only
living water, which flow from our bellies is urine. And how retarded one should be to miss that and believe
in a convicted
felon to be his/her god? This is the undeniable
evidence that Jesus served his urine and preached urine drinking. By the way, we all know that Jesus was a freeloader and
never had a job, home and life; therefore, question of having goblets and/or
cups cannot be entertained. This will explain the tradition of “below job”,
which perhaps begin then (what a double
pleasure in Christianity). No
wonder, Paul sucked Timothy’s penis as we read:
What was the method used in those days to circumcise
someone? This is explained in detail by A. N. Wilson who writes:
By
Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that
Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth
reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which
it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of
the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The
second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the
foreskin which still adheres to the glans, so as to lay it wholly bare. This
was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional
circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential
part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from
the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to
finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries
and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to
clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a
young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. 12
We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the
ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had
already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not
surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took
the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually
'cut you . . . off from Christ'. But could any greater contrast be imagined
between this belief and the traditional Jewish view that those who did not
weild that knife delayed the coming of the Messiah?
(Ibid., p. 131)
In other words, Paul had
to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him!
Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New
Testament:
2:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will
profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to
every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye
would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by
faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through
love.
(Gal
5:2-6 American Standard Version)
{Taken
from Noorullah website}
Yet,
another question that begs for an answer, why Paul didn’t heal Timothy. We are bombard
with absurd claims by Christians that Jesus’ disciples performed miracles,
raised people from dead and heal the sick and suffering…blah blah blah. Then
why Paul couldn’t heal the minor skin removal?
Saturday,
December 25, 2004