World's Worst Islamic Apologist Exposed (PART II) The End of an ELF: BADELF mentally damaged by Dk

An update here, after BADELF was obliterated by my earlier post, he had a complete psychological melt down and then decided to make his entire first post in response to me dedicated to ad-hominem and then his entire second post was dedicated to red herrings! This is after SCHOOLEDELF had ignore his responsibility to address the post in question which annihilated him and his so called defense of "CT".

How unsurprising.

What BADELF of course doesn't know is that ALL OF THE PERONSAL INFORMATION he supposedly tries to expose me with is FREELY available on my YOUTUBE ACCOUNT


It must have really stung SADELF when he not only had no response but was exposed as a complete light weight, a no-body, unemployed and even girlfriendless. BADELF enjoy the last of your publicity because you won't be getting anymore, especially with fallacious pontificating like this!

Notice how hurt BADELF is he spends his entire two posts ranting and yelling in caps-lock, it's a shame really how rookies are so easily upset, SADELF was so upset he even forgot to to separate his paragraphs in his rage and hostility. 

Now that BADELF has let his frustrations with his girlfriendless life (by taking it out on others) out of his system, it's time to focus on what is suppose to be BADELF's substance and "rebuttal".

I will respond section by section to this marvelous stupendous "response" of his. I would like to thank BADELF for vindicating my original impression of him as possibly the world's worst Islamic apologist since he completely confirms this!

First he says:

LETS GO BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC NOW WHICH IS :

Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?

Well that's a sensible approach to take BADELF, I'm proud of you boy!

BADELF then says:

FIRST , I WAS RIGHT WHEN I CLAIMED THAT YOU YOUR AGRUMENTS HAVE NO BIBLICAL BASES , THE PROOF IS YOU STILL CANNOT PROVE THE CONCEPT OF TRINITY IN THE BIBLE , SO WHAT YOU DO ? YOU JUST USE SCATTERED PEICES FROM HERE AND THERE WHICH GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY .

Long lost BADELF, changes the subject, after directing us to the ACTUAL subject. It couldn't get worse.

But BADELF also fails to address his original mistake:

The irony here is that BADELF says my arguments have no biblical basis but then says the scattered pieces I quote show how the Bible contradicts itself. So BADELF contradicts himself in the first sentence of trying to expose me. Either what I say has no Biblical basis, or it indeed does have a Biblical basis that simply contradict other parts of the Bible, it cannot be both...

He also refers to portions of the Bible that contradict his view as "irrelevant scattered pieces". But the passages I quoted were all relevant to the topic which was: Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?" In fact there are only 2 prophets who are said to raise the dead in the OT, so those passages were perfectly relevant.

Since BADELF simply cannot make his argument cogent or coherent I will assume that he thinks the Bible contradicts itself (rather than asserting the verses I offered do not exist in the Bible, since he already confessed in his paragraph these are irrelevant passages, he admits they exist, even though they expose him), and will address what he brings to our attention. He quotes Matthew 10:1;7-11. and John 8:28, Acts 5:30 and John 11:41-43

Instead he lies and says he was referring to the Trinity in the Bible after being exposed, we know he wasn't referring to the Trinity in the Bible since immediately after he made these statements he appealed to verses that were supposedly suppose to show Apostles had divine abilities just like Jesus, the verses emboldened above. BADELF was caught with his pants down.

SADELF after redirecting us to the topic, but instead directs us to the Trinity, then again takes us on another journey related to textual criticism of the Bible!:

SECOND THING , I BEEN DEBATING YOU ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE AND TILL NOW YOU COULDNT PROVIDE ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE NEVER BEEN CHANGED OR IT BEEN NEVER CORRUPTED.
AGAIN ILL USE MY USUAL AGRUMENT : WHO ADDED JOHN 8/1-11 AND 1JOHN 5-7 TO THE BIBLE .
AND WHY WE HAVE DIFFERENT CATHOLIC ,ORTHODOX, PROTESTANT BIBLES ?
SO YOU SHOW ONLY IGNORANCE WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT THE WHOLE BIBLE BEEN PRESERVED AND IT DIDNT GET CHANGED WHILE MY CAT KNOWS THAT YOUR BIBLE GOT CORRUPTED AND CHANGED .
AND YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WORD BEING GOD S WORD AND BEING MAN S WORD.
SO AGAIN I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THAT THE HUMANS HANDS DIDNT PLAY WITH THE CONTENT OF THE BIBLE.

Back to stage one. Off topic red herrings! hah
 
First of all I have a complete series covering this. And an entire section covering textual criticism! See video 3 for those specific passages. How is this related to anything at all? Hillarious, BADELF has no response, so goes on points he thinks he has left against Christianity.

Well after two logical fallacies, finally BADELF might just get round in the next four years to getting his act together and respond to my post since again he says:

LETS GO BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC AGAIN WHICH IS :

Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?

Okay finally we are going to get back to the topic! BADELF says:

LET ME CRUSH YOUR WHOLE NONSENSE IRRELEVANT LECTURE WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTES:
1- IF YOU SAY JESUS IS GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS GOD AS WELL ,WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS , AND OF COURSE THAT CONTRADICTS THE CONCEPT OF TRINITY WHICH DECLARES THAT THERES ONLY ONE GOD

LOLOLOLOL!

First of all SADELF, predictably only get's it half right:

IF YOU SAY JESUS IS GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS GOD AS WELL

He then falsely concludes: WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS

In order to make such false conclussions: OWNEDELF, the sentence would have to be written as such:

IF YOU SAY JESUS IS A GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS A GOD AS WELL WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS

This sentence in english would indicate two gods. However the first sentence indicates Jesus and the Father are both God (singular) while the second setence shows Jesus and the Father are two distinct gods with the use of the indefinite article. Of course BADELF already knows what God is, that God is Creator, omniscient, omnipotent etc, so we are describing WHAT CATEGORY Jesus and the Father belong to when we say they are God, we don't say Jesus is FULLY who God encompasses since that would mean Jesus is ALL THREE WHO's of the Trinity. Rather Trinitarians only say Jesus is fully WHAT God is, meaning he possesses the same substance and attributes of divinity, we don't say he is fully who God is, namely all three persons.

But again this is off topic. The topic becomes (at least in BADELF's mind): Does the Bible teach POLYTHEISM? He then ludicrously argues since the Trinity teaches God is one (we thank you for BADELF being one of many Muslims to admit this which exposes the Quran and Islam and even his God: Allah who couldn't get it right!) he ends up concluding therefore Jesus and the Father can't both be God since that would contradict the definition of the Trinity.

I honestly don't know how STUPID, BLIND, FOOLISH and illiterate BADELF is?

Did he just conveniently forget to point out that the very definition of Trinity he appeals to say that the Father and Son are apart of this "oneness" he refers to:

Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. (source)

Thankfully SADELF finally makes a correct statement:

YOU ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO SAY THAT IF (JESUS GOD) MEANS THE FATHER (ISNT) GOD .

OF COURSE YOU WILL DENY TO SAY SO , BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO SAY , NO THEY ARE NOT GODS BUT THEY ARE PERSONS

The last statement is true, they are indeed persons. As for the first statement: "If Jesus is God, therefore the Father is not God".

The reason why we cannot make this statement is since this unequivocally begs the question and presupposes Unitarianism, namely the belief that God is a single person (usually the Father).

However the assumption made is that Jesus alone is the only true God and that God is only one person and therefore the Father cannot too be God.

Lets bring this out further:

1. God is only one person
2. Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons
3. If Jesus is God (and God is only one person), therefore the Father (who is a distinct person from Jesus) cannot be God (since God is only one person occupied by Jesus)

This reasoning completely follows, if premise 1 and 2 are true. However Trinitarians contest premise 1, "God is only one person".

A similar case SADELF might know about is when Muslims appeal to John 17:3 we have no argument against the assertion that the Father is the only true God, we simply do not affirm the Father alone is the only true God.

Anthony Rogers puts this best:

The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls "the only true God" is the Father (John 17:1-2), a notion that Muslims anathematize. Therefore, even if this were some kind of unitarianism, it is certainly not Islamic-unitarianism.

As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God; Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form: A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.

Even someone untrained in logic should be able to immediately see that this is fallacious. It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates (C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates (C) is not mortal (B). Both arguments - the one against Christ's deity and the one against Socrates mortality - take the same form; hence, both are fallacious. Things would be different if the text said "only the Father is God", or "the Father alone is the only true God", but it does not. [Muslim apologist Shabir Ally seems to recognize this, at least implicitly, assuming his remark wasn't intentional, for he unwittingly misquotes this verse in one of his articles attacking the deity of Christ, saying: "Jesus too confirmed that the Father alone is the only true God (see John 17:1-3)".]¹

{This argument might also be stated in the form of a conditional: "If one is the Father, then one is the only true God; Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not the only true God". In this case, the fallacy committed is that of denying the antecedent. As above, things would be different if the text would yield: "If and only if one is the Father...". As above, this, too, is ruled out by the text. That much is clear.}

Thus, in saying that the Father is the only true God in John 17:3, the deity of Jesus is neither affirmed nor denied, for it might be that Jesus is one with the Father or that He shares His Father's nature, a claim that Jesus repeatedly makes elsewhere in various ways.

In sum, then, the conclusion at this point must be that the text stands over against Islamic-unitarianism and does not deny the deity of Christ. For these two reasons, we must conclude that John 17:3 is decidedly not an Islamic proof-text.(source)

Moving on to SADELF's next blunder:

2-IN CASE YOU SAY THAT ,YOU GONNA ADMIT THAT THE FATHER ISNT GOD BUT HES A PERSON , AND JESUS ISNT GOD BUT HES A PERSON , AND THAT CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM YOU MADE THAT JESUS IS GOD , AND YOU CONTRADICT THE BIBLE WHICH CLEARLY SRATES THAT THE FATHER IS GOD.

Unfortunately for SICKELF the creeds don't change because of his confused inability to comprehend standard logic. The Father and Son are fully divine persons of God. And the Father is fully God (what God is, not fully whom God is) and the Son is fully God(what God is, not fully whom God is).

Trinitarians can refer to the Father as God (since in many places in the Bible it can function as a proper noun for the Father, just like "Lord" functions as proper noun for Jesus in many places), or at other times they may use God as a describing noun, meaning the term "God" is describing the nature of the person in question, namely what he is.

In fact even the dictionary describes God like this, as in what he is:

theol: the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

The dictionary is careful to use the word being as opposed to person, since being is what something is, and person is who someone is. Further more, the dictionary shows "God" is a perfect example of a descriptive noun, identifying one's characteristics, namely the nature of what something is!

Ironically the New Testament has both uses of the word: God. To identify who someone is: namely the Father, and also to identify what something is: namely Jesus.

"God" is not always used as merely a descriptive noun in the New Testament, it's used as a proper noun to identify a member of the Godhead.

The New Testament quite easily identifies "God the Father" as a proper noun belonging to the Father, using this to identify this individual of the God head. At the beginning of his epistle to the Romans, Paul states:

To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! Romans 1:7

"God" then in the first part of this sentence, although without qualification as "the Father" in the very next past of this sentence is expanded and expounded into "from God our Father", showing Paul identifies without even qualifying the usage of the word God, that mostly "God" refers to the Father (without specifying the word "Father", although he does at times it is meant to be understood from the mere use of "God").

And at the end of Paul's epistle repeats a similar phrase:

so that you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with a united mind and voice. Romans 15:6

There is therefore no doubt in New Testament scholarship, that authors in the New Testament view God as a personal noun for the Father and Lord as a personal noun for Jesus. Paul bears witness to this fact at the start and finish of even this one epistle!


However the same author part way through his letter to the Church of Rome, has no problem also using "God" as a descriptive noun, to describe WHAT Jesus is:

To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen. Romans 9:5

 Yet else where Paul says:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Cor 8:6

Surely Paul is mad? If Paul identifies the single God as the Father, and Jesus as the single Lord, then how could also refer to Jesus as "God" after all there is only one single God: the Father! Paul even in the same epistle as referring to God as Father and Jesus as Lord still identifies Jesus as God. What is going on here?

• Paul says the one God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6, Romans 1:7;15:6)
• Paul says Jesus is not the Father (he is one Lord)
• Paul says Jesus is God (Romans 9:5)

All this difficulty is solved when we realize Paul uses proper nouns to identify distinctions between the Father and Son, yet he does not exclude Jesus from being of the nature of the one God, any less than he excludes the Father from being of and possessing the nature of the one Lord. Paul merely uses these title distinctions to make distinctions between the persons, yet he never uses these title distinctions of "God" and "Lord" to deny that both are inherently ontologically both God and Lord.

Now that we know Paul refers to Jesus as both Lord and God, how about God the Father?

In his epistles to the Ephesians Paul carries out the same theme:

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:3 Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens.

Eph 1:17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, would give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him. 

Eph 5:20 giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ 

And at the end of his epistle:

Eph 6:23 Peace to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet this does not stop Paul from interchangeably referring to God the Father even as the Lord:

Children, obey your parents as you would the Lord, because this is right. Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, so that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life in the land. Fathers, don’t stir up anger in your children, but bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Children, obey your parents as you would the Lord, because this is right. Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ. Don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but as slaves of Christ, do GOD'S WILL from your heart. Serve with a good attitude, AS TO THE LORD and not to men, knowing that whatever good each one does, slave or free, he will receive this back FROM THE LORD. And masters, treat your slaves the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him. Finally, be strengthened BY THE LORD and by HIS vast strength. Put on the FULL ARMOR OF GOD so that you can stand against the tactics of the Devil.  Ephesians 6:1-11

Paul refers to God the Father as the Lord (a proper noun he exclusively gives to the one Lord Jesus) elsewhere:

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belial?4 Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does GOD'S SANCTUARY have with idols? For we are the sanctuary of the LIVING GOD, as GOD SAID: I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be THEIR GOD, and they will be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, SAYS THE LORD; do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. I will be a FATHER TO YOU, and you will be sons and daughters to Me, says THE LORD ALMIGHTY. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Hence for Paul to give proper nouns to the Father and Son, (respectively in Koine Greek: theos and kurios and in Hebrew: Eloheem and YHVH) never means for Paul that the Father does not constitute "Lord" or Jesus Christ does not constitute "God", rather the names are only to identify the personal distinctions and a more formal terminology to describe the persons of the Godhead.

But Paul is not the only one who realized this, so did James!

Did James or Paul, apply BADELF's clumsy reasoning? Such as:

1. The Lord is only one
2. Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons
3. If the Father is Lord (and the Lord is only one ), therefore Jesus (who is a distinct person from the Father) cannot be Lord (since Lord is only one who is the Father)

This is the very same fallacious reasoning BADELF uses to reject the divinity of the Son, yet using the same ludicrous argument, we would have to reject the Lordship of either the Son or the Father, since the category of "single Lord" can only be occupied by one person at a time according to SADELF! Well we know that James like Paul refuses to accept the false analogous reason of the clumsy fool LOSTELF.
James describes the Father as Lord:

But He gives greater grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to THE HUMBLE. Therefore, submit to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near TO GOD and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people! Be miserable and mourn and weep. Your laughter must change to mourning and your joy to sorrow. Humble yourselves BEFORE THE LORD, and He will exalt you. James 4:6-10

We praise our Lord and Father with it, and we curse men who are made in God’s likeness with it. James 3:9

Yet even James understood the proper noun for the Father was "God", but this never meant the Father was not Lord for him, nor did it mean the Father was considered the single Lord excluding Jesus from being Lord:

From James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad.3 Greetings!  James 1:1

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. James 2:1

So does brainless ELF get it now? God is a personal noun used of the Father in the New Testament, and Lord is a personal noun used to describe the Son, these are ways of making a distinction in persons and using a set official terminology for purposes of understanding and creed.
Yet the NT authors were by no mean rigid to say that because the Father is the "one God" therefore Jesus is not. Rather we see they still accepted Jesus was of the being of God (what God is), as used as a descriptive word describing Christ's divine nature, the same nature possessed by the very Father.

We also see the authors of the NT describe the Father as "Lord" describing his divine name and nature, yet never identifying him as Jesus, thus showing "Lord" can be used as a formal proper noun in most cases applied to Jesus Christ, or it can be used more loosely to show the Father is Lord(what he is), again using a descriptive word to describe God's inherent ontological nature.

BADELF next says:

3-YOU LAST CHANCE YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOUR DIGNITY IS TO SAY, THAT : THE FATHER AND JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE PERSONS AND GODS IN THE SAME TIME 

SADELF was paritally right, they are: persons and God (singular, not plural) at the same time. Person = WHO someone is and GOD here = WHAT something is.

ELF next says:

AND THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER BECAUSE YOU EQUAL THE WORD (PERSON) WITH THE WORD (GOD) , 

False, as explained over and over.

THEREFORE WE WILL HAVE 3 GODS (WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT THE WORD PERSON IS THE SYNONYM OF THE WORD GOD).

They are not synonyms. False again.

I WILL NOT PUT WORDS ON YOUR MOUTH SO ILL HAVE TO ASK YOU :
ONION HEAD :
IS THE FATHER A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?
IS JESUS A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?

Persons and God.

SO WHATEVER YOUR ANSWER WILL BE YOU WILL FALL IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION TO NOT FALL IN THAT PIT YOU WILL HAVE TO SAY :
THE FATHER IS THE GOD , JESUS IS A PERSON NOT GOD (PROPHET), THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON NOT GOD .

Perhaps if I constantly made false dilemmas and begged Unitarianism I would be?

THEN YOU WILL REACH THE RIGHT CONCLUSION WHICH IS , THE GOD GAVE THE POWER TO THE PROPHET JESUS TO RAISE THE DEAD LIKE THE GOD DID WITH 2 PROPHETS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT :)

Of course if clumsy ELF had of read the passages I cited to CT in the Old Testament, he would have seen the passages do not claim God gave his own powers to the Prophets (an act of idoltary and shirk in Islam and Christianity), rather that they INVOKED GOD to perform the miracle, the only thing a Prophet may do is beseech God who then uses his own divine power to perform miracles.

Finally Elfie says:

WHOS THE ROOKIE NOW MR ONION HEAD

Couldn't have said it better!

I'll leave it at that.

Time to go back to pre-school OWNEDELF.

This source of entertainment has been brought to you by:

Derek Adams 

www.AnsweringAbraham.com

World's Worst Islamic Apologist Exposed

The Worst of Islamic Apologetics: A Muslim user named "BADELF" exposed

BADELF, a jobless, girlfriendless hack, whom nobody is aware of, tried his best to expose Christians but has little significance to anyone, surely he will get a kick out of me writing about him and making him famous.

I want to show my friends just how bad Islamic Apologetics still is and thanks to BADELF posting under my blog anonymously we now have this opportunity to show the caliber of Islamic Apologetics.

BADELF made an attempted "rebuttal" to my refutation of a Catholic, Universalist, Pro-Muslim CTWestCoast over here. This is possibly the worst rebuttal I've ever read (perhaps even worse than CTWestCoast himself!).

I wasn't going to respond, but since BADELF provides us the best and most excellent opportunity to show the worst of the worst when it comes to Islamic Apologetics, I will at least respond this one time to give everybody an example of what the ilk of BADELF and those millions of Muslims akin to him, have to offer.

BADELF said:

"DK AS USUAL YOUR AGRUMENTS HAVE NO BIBLICAL BASES AND YOU OFTEN CONTRADICT THE BIBLE IN ORDER TO TRY GATHERING ITS IRRELEVENT SCATTERED PEICES , AND THATS A PROOF THAT YOUR BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF , SO LETS SEE WHAT YOUR BIBLE SAYS :"

The irony here is that BADELF says my arguments have no biblical basis but then says the scattered pieces I quote show how the Bible contradicts itself. So BADELF contradicts himself in the first sentence of trying to expose me. Either what I say has no Biblical basis, or it indeed does have a Biblical basis that simply contradict other parts of the Bible, it cannot be both.
BADELF clearly requires a lesson in English as-well, and that I will happily supply it to him. I never tried to gather verses from various sections of the Bible, in fact I did!  Does BADELF need to know the difference between an accomplished act, and a temporal effort?

He also refers to portions of the Bible that contradict his view as "irrelevant scattered pieces". But the passages I quoted were all relevant to the topic which was: Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?" In fact there are only 2 prophets who are said to raise the dead in the OT, so those passages were perfectly relevant.

Since BADELF simply cannot make his argument cogent or coherent I will assume that he thinks the Bible contradicts itself (rather than asserting the verses I offered do not exist in the Bible, since he already confessed in his paragraph these are irrelevant passages, he admits they exist, even though they expose him), and will address what he brings to our attention. He quotes Matthew 10:1;7-11. and John 8:28, Acts 5:30 and John 11:41-43

BADELF is obviously so assured of whatever nonsensical assertions he is espousing that he thinks the point of his quotations should be self-evident.

However in his first quotation of Matthew 10 STRUGGLINGELF only ends up embarrassing himself, since he confirms exactly what I had said in the earlier post in which I told CT:

Dk-man7: NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE EVER ROSE THE DEAD, U ARE SMOKED, they merely INVOKED the power of THE LORD

And also:

Dk-man7: False on all accounts. 1) The "all authority" has been given to me is a statement post-ressurection, so how does Jesus raise the dead before his ressurection if he didn't have the authority apriori? 2) Authority does not mean ABILITY, anyone can give AUTHORITY to do something, but if someone is physically handicap and unable to perform the function, then he still can't, thus Jesus would need the abilities and power, even if he was given the authority

Dk-man7: Jesus did not give this divine authority to "Peter", Jesus never made any of the claims Jesus made, he merely invoked the authority of Jesus

Dk-man7: if Peter's authority is meant to be the same authority as Jesus , then why didn't Peter possess his authority and stop invoking Jesus ?

Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.

And here's what he appeals to:

And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness... And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food Matthew 10:1;7-11

Thus confirming what I had already stated, that the apostles had no ability or authority in and of themselves, but were given authority and had to invoke the Lord Jesus so that he could perform these miracles!

In fact, BADELF, conveniently ignored the response given to him in the comment section which perfectly exposes him:

the editor
Citing Matthew 10: 7-11 without it's context is an erroneous approach at best. Jesus commissioned them, meaning, he gave them a directive. He passed on HIS authority. Jesus did not say "You can do this in your own authority". Rule #1 of a disciple is that he or she be UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST. That's why JESUS called the twelve and not the other way around.

BADELF conveniently skipped out the passage where Jesus commands the disciples: "freely ye received, freely give", hence the same gifts and authority that were given to the apostles were also to be given to those whom they preached to whom received Jesus!

Matthew 10: 40  “Whoever receives YOU receives ME, and whoever receives me receives HIM WHO SENT ME. 41  The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”

Hence if an Israelite received a Disciple preaching Christ, by virtue of accepting the message of the disciple THEY RECEIVED CHRIST AND HIS FATHER. Finally we have Jesus once again appealing to his own divine authority: "truly, I say to you", where as Peter never appeals to his own authority (given to him by Jesus) in the New Testament, rather he appeals to the authority of the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS as quoted extensively in the previous post. A person who claims to have the kind of authority Jesus possessed shows why the same individual can make such extravagant claims like the following.

Jesus claims the exclusive worship that belongs to God alone:

Matthew 10: 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than ME is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than ME is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life WILL LOSE IT, and whoever loses his life FOR MY SAKE WILL FIND IT. 

Jesus knew this worship was due to God alone aswell:

Matthew 22: 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, CALLS HIM LORD, saying, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Jesus not only equates himself with God by telling his followers and audience they must love him more than their own families (which no prophet had claimed prior to Christ, direct challenge to anyone who claims otherwise: produce a single verse showing this), he also claims this worship must be for his own sake, complete BLASPHEMY! if Jesus was merely a prophet. He claims they must lose their lives for Jesus himself! Incredible, seeing that in the Torah, life is only to be devoted to God alone, and never a prophet. In fact it's blasphemous to serve a prophet in the sense that you serve Yahweh, or give your life or devote your life to say: "Yahweh and Isaiah, or Moses and Elijah", no prophets are merited such honor.

Jesus then schools the Pharisees and shows them how the Messiah is the Lord of David, even though the Messiah is said to be born after David! He also proves the Lord of David sits on the right hand of the Lord! Which is punishable by death according to the Talmud, the highest exalted being in creation (Metatron) is forbidden to take a seat on God's right hand even to scribe and write down events! Yet according to Jesus, the Lord not only exalts the Lord of David by enthroning him, he crushes his enemy, is God a servant to the Messiah? Or do we have what Trinitarians call the perfect unity of the Father and the Son?

BADELF also leaves out Matthew 10:5 (Jesus although he has given them authority, sends them and then STILL instructs them on what they can and cannot do.) Mr Elf doesn't quote the instructions of Jesus:

Matthew 10:11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, greet it.13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

Hence in this passage Jesus claims by his own divine authority: "Truly I say to you", (something no prophet has never claimed prior). But why does he appeal to his own exclusive divine authority here? in the case of the judgement?

This is because Jesus claims to be the very judge of these people:

21  Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22  and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

But Jesus is not merely the judge of the Israelites, he is also judge of all of creation according to the same chapter:

 26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.7 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?8  And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32  So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

In verse 26 Jesus claims he knows all the secrets of those whom he Judges, making him omniscient in his second coming, because God alone knows the hearts of mankind, those whom he judges. In verse 28 Jesus claims omnipotence (and omnipresent) by being able to destroy both body and soul in hell! In verses 32-33 Jesus claims to be the judge of all mankind, but not merely the judge of mans actions under the law and penalty on earth, but the very authority who allows and disallows a person into paradise before his Father!
 
Further in Matt 10, Jesus claims the following:

16 “BEHOLD, I AM SENDING YOU OUT out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, TO BEAR WITNESS BEFORE THEM AND THE GENTILES. 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

What do we learn from the same chapter SADELF appeals to?

1. Only God sends prophets (in the sense of their commission, ministry and annointing) 
2. Jesus sends prophets
3. Therefore Jesus is God.

We further learn the Apostles are to bear witness to gentiles (not merely Jews), and they are BEARING WITNESS to the Father and his Son. Jesus then claims the Spirit of the Father will speak through them, proving Mohammed was never the spirit and or/ comforter, and demonstrating Apostles have no authority on their own, even when GIVEN AUTHORITY by Jesus, they still require the Spirit of God to operate through them, preaching not their words, but his own. Clear evidence SADELF does not know the type of authority possessed by the Apostles.

So I challenge SADELF to produce a single verse where ANY disciple claimed: "Truly, I SAY UNTO YOU..." since SADELF and incompetent CT support them possessing an IDENTICAL AUTHORITY to Jesus, they must provide the evidence.

 BADELF then appeals to the Gospel of John (the worst thing you could as a Muslim):

Jesus therefore said, 'When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me,'" (John 8:28).

This verse (according to ELF) is supposedly suppose to show that Jesus does nothing by himself. I concur Jesus does nothing by himself. And I too, concur, that he teaches in this verse his own crucifixion: "When you lift up the son of man", and expresses his own divinity: "then you will that I AM HE". In fact I had already stated this to CT:

Dk-man7: You also made a false analogy by comparing Jesus appeal to the Father as an authority vs Peter's appeal to Jesus. Jesus appeals to the Father NOT in the same sense that Peter appeals to the name of the Lord Jesus. Jesus claims all the attributes of divinity and claims HE CAN DO NOTHING BY HIMSELF BUT PERFORM WHATEVER THE FATHER DOES Where does Peter claim he has these divine attributes, titles and functions and that he together with the father performs the miracles?

Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.

This is mentioned all throughout the Bible:

John 5:15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

The audacity for Jesus to call God his own personal Father (in a distinct sense from everyone else), and then claim he WORKS alongside with the Father on the Sabbath HEALING others (a divine attribute), possessing an authority of one ABOVE the Law given by God equal to God!

Then the follow up in verse 19 for Jesus to claim he and his Father work not alone but in perfect unity, since the Son can do whatever God almighty can do!  We have never, ever! observed the apostles of Jesus making claims like this, nor their successors. They never claimed to possess such authority or such divine characteristics, like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Now BADELF, feel free to answer the same challenge I gave to CT, since he never answered the question either. And once you answer the challenge (if you can produce a single verse where Peter raised the dead by his own divine ability given to him by God), you can then answer these questions:

Dk-man7: so CT, do you admit that God granted Peter the ability to RAISE PEOPLE FROM THE DEAD? You think God gave Peter this ability?
Dk-man7: CT, if that is the case, please explain how Peter was FULLY HUMAN if his human nature possessed one of God's divine attributes of rebirth and creation
Dk-man7: exposed again
CT_wESt CoaSt: Of course God gave peter the abuility like the Father gave Jesus the authority
CT_wESt CoaSt: very simple
CT_wESt CoaSt: 
Dk-man7: dam YOU JUST CRUSHED YOURSELF
Dk-man7: you just SAID the Father GAVE BOTH JESUS AND PETER DIVINE ABILITIES
Dk-man7: U ARE SMOKED

And just in case BADELF tries to make up excuses and thinks ability and authority are the same, I already demonstrated they are not:

2) Authority does not mean ABILITY, anyone can give AUTHORITY to do something, but if someone is physically handicap and unable to perform the function, then he still can't, thus Jesus would need the abilities and power, even if he was given the authority

In other words demonstrating that Peter was given AUTHORITY to raise the dead through Jesus, establishes our position that Peter with the authority given to him by Christ had to invoke the Lord Jesus to raise the corpses from the dead. However if CT and BADELF consistently argue Peter was given the ABILITY, they need to prove that, Peter had divine attributes which refutes both of their respective religions! Also if they wish to argue Jesus and Peter had the exact same DIVINE AUTHORITY, they need to argue Peter shared the divine attributes and functions that Christ claimed to possess.

Next, UNEDUCATEDELF the rookie quotes Acts 5:30 as stating that "Jesus couldn't even raise himself from the dead". However the verse never says Jesus could not nor did not raise Jesus from the dead. It does not make a negation of Jesus divine power, rather it makes an affirmation of God the Father's divine power:

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

SADSADELF then claims any other passage that says Jesus raised himself would be a contradition to the former passage! Which is a complete non-sequitor.

A statement that contradicts itself:

1. Jesus did not raise himself from the dead
2. Jesus did raise himself from the dead

A statement that does not contradict itself is:

1. God the Father raised Jesus from the dead
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead

Premise 1 in the above is inclusive and not exclusive.

An exclusive proposition would be: 

1. God the Father alone raised Jesus from the dead
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead 

This would either prove Jesus must be God the Father (which is unbiblical), or the statement itself is a contradiction.

BADELF next quotes John 11:41-43 and says Jesus could not raise the dead without the permission of the Father.

This statement does not conflict with Trinitarian belief. Jesus is not an "independent deity" working separately from God the Father, in fact God the Son, the Son of God came to execute God the Father's will on earth, he came to redeem his creation, and preach the gospel as sent forth to accomplish by his God and Father.

However this does not mean that Jesus always prayed or invoked his Father before healing or raising the dead:

Luke 7:11 Soon afterward3  he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. 12 As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her. 13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” 15 And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother.

And:

Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter  said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened. Luke 8:40-56

SADELF concluded:

JESUS ACCORDING TO THIS VERSE DIDNT HAVE ALL THE AUTHORITY , OTHERWISE HE WOULDNT ASK THE FATHER TO RAISE LAZARUS .

BADELF obviously in his zealous for defending falsehood, misread the verse and my conversation with CT,  otherwise he would already know the answer to this is just to read it:

Dk-man7: 1) 42I knew that you ALWAYS  hear me --- In context of John this is because Jesus is the Son of God who is ONE with God and they always work in perfect union<
Dk-man7: but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” <<<<  exposes u
Dk-man7: I SAID THIS ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE

Just to emphasize again for BLINDELF, since now I know he's half illiterate:

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you THAT YOU HAVE (assumed already) HEARD ME. 42 I  KNEW THAT YOU ALWAYS HEAR ME, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that YOU SENT ME.” 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” John 11:41-43

Hence Jesus was not praying for permission to raise the dead from his Father, but rather was praying to his Father for the benefit of those standing before him! More on this later.

God is about to raise the dead, so the distinction is clear. Jesus is highlighting the perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. The sense in which Jesus "knows" the Father and he always hears him, is clearly defined by the relationship between the Son of God and God and the perfect divine unity presented in the Gospel of John between the two. In other words the Father cannot help but hear Jesus, since they fully are the same divine unity, and they must always comport with one another!

In this passage, Jesus ASSUMES the Father has already HEARD HIM and granted his "request" even before he communicates with the Father! IF FOOLISHELF had of read the passage carefully he would known that Jesus is THANKING his Father BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HEARS HIM.

Now we all know God hears all prayers, hence Jesus is not thanking him generically (like everyone else) since God listens to every prayer on earth.

So how is Jesus using the words: "I know that you ALWAYS HEAR ME" well just before this statement he said "Father I THANK YOU THAT YOU HAVE (past tense) HEARD ME". In other words Jesus already KNOWS the Father will raise Lazarus from the dead and is THANKING him before hand! So the Father always hearing Jesus shows how they always work together in perfect unison, even demonstrating, the Father can never deny the Son, let alone destroy him.

This is similar to other passages in John:

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears MY WORD and believes him WHO SENT ME has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Now does hearing the words of Jesus and believing in his Father mean you will have eternal life? Well according to John 8:30-31 there was a group of Jews who believed in Jesus, however Jesus rebuked them! accusing them of having Satan as their true Father (vs:44) and these same believing Jews in the end tried to kill Christ (verse 59).

Hence these people heard the words of Jesus and believed in him (and his Father), but will they be given eternal life? Well no.  That's because the hearing mentioned in John 5:24 is perpetual belief, meaning an on going belief which results in faith, repentance and obedience..

HEARING Jesus WORD, and BELIEVING in the God who sent him are in fact identical. Hearing in this verse is therefore a metaphor for believing, on-going belief. You must hear (abide/trust) in the words of Jesus and his Father.

But John again supplies us with a similar usage of the word HEARING in the following verse:

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

The second time: "those who hear will live" is particularly referring to those physically dead (vs 26-29) who will inherit eternal life: vs 24 "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Jesus goes on to say:

26  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

It's clear then that although every person at the end hour will be resurrected and in this sense hear the voice of the Son of God, however "those who HEAR will live" in the second usage (vs 25) is not merely referring to hearing the audible voice and power of Jesus which resurrects every human being, but rather responding to Jesus and his Father in true faith and repentance, those who are given true life.

Notice Jesus when referring to the day of judgement doesn't refer to "those who have HEARD will live" (in the past tense), since even at the day of Resurrection, the believers are still faithful loyal servants and confessors of Jesus and his Father in the present, "those who hear will live", an on going, perpetual belief.

Now that we know the greek word for HEAR: Akouo has a range of meanings, which best suits John 11:41-42?

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number:   191
Original Word Word Origin ajkouvw a root Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Akouo 1:216,34 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ak-oo'-o    Verb
Definition
to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf to hear to attend to, consider what is or has been said to understand, perceive the sense of what is said to hear something to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence to get by hearing learn a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn to give ear to a teaching or a teacher to comprehend, to understand

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ME (kousav? mou). 42 I knew that you always HEAR ME(mou ajkouvei?), but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” John 11:41-43

John then shows us that God the Father is GIVING EAR to his Son Jesus, hence probably why The NET Bible, The Good News Translation, Hebrew Name Version, World English Bible and The Message all translate Akouo as "listen" in this context. This is because the Father doesn't simply hear the request of Jesus audibly, but he listens and always fulfills his wishes. This is clear from the context as well, since Jesus was saying God listens to him by resurrecting Lazarus. It's also worthy to note that the listening of the Father to the Son, is on going, he always listens to Jesus, which results in him always fulfilling Jesus desire, this is the perfect unity.

Biblical commentator Matthew Henry sums up nicely why this would have been beneficial for the followers of Jesus and shows how Jesus is divine:

Our Lord Jesus has taught us, by his own example, to call God Father, in prayer, and to draw nigh to him as children to a father, with humble reverence, yet with holy boldness. He openly made this address to God, with uplifted eyes and loud voice, that they might be convinced the Father had sent him as his beloved Son into the world. He could have raised Lazarus by the silent exertion of his power and will, and the unseen working of the Spirit of life; but he did it by a loud call. This was a figure of the gospel call, by which dead souls are brought out of the grave of sin: and of the sound of the archangel's trumpet at the last day, with which all that sleep in the dust shall be awakened, and summoned before the great tribunal. The grave of sin and this world, is no place for those whom Christ has quickened; THEY MUST COME FORTH. Lazarus was thoroughly revived, and returned not only to life, but to health. The sinner cannot quicken his own soul, but he is to use the means of grace; the believer cannot sanctify himself, but he is to lay aside every weight and hinderance. We cannot convert our relatives and friends, but we should instruct, warn, and invite them.(Source)

A.T. Robertson, a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament says:

I thank thee that thou heardest me (eucaristw soi oti hkousa mou). See Acts 6:11 for eucaristew. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling inprayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death. And I knew (egw de hdein). Past perfect of oida used as imperfect. This confident knowledge is no new experience with Jesus. It has "always" (pantote) been so. (Word Pictures of the New Testament)

One reformer, John Wesley also exposes SADELF:

Jesus lifted up his eyes - Not as if he applied to his Father for assistance. There is not the least show of this. He wrought the miracle with an air of absolute sovereignty, as the Lord of life and death. But it was as if he had said, I thank thee, that by the disposal of thy providence, thou hast granted my desire, in this remarkable opportunity of exerting my power, and showing forth thy praise. (source)

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton assert:

"Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. Jesus, dwelling in constant communion with the Father, knew that the Father concurred in his wish to raise Lazarus. He therefore makes public acknowledgment, and offers a prayer of thanksgiving, for the Father's gracious answer to this and all his petitions. That they may believe that thou didst sent me. He states, too, that the prayer is publicly made that it may induce faith in the by standers.He wished all present to know that the miracle about to be wrought is not the work of some independent wonder-worker, but is performed by himas one commissioned and sent of God. In other words, the miracle was wrought to prove the concord between the Son and the Father, the very fact which the Jews refused to believe. Rationalists criticize this prayer as a violation of the principle at Matthew 6:5 Matthew 6:6 ), and Weissecalled it "prayer for show". But it shows on its face that it is notuttered by Jesus to draw admiration to himself as a praying man, but to induce faith unto salvation in those who heard." ("Harmony of the Four Gospels")

Dr. Constable's Expository (Bible Study) Notes concludes for SADELF:

"11:41b-42 Jesus addressed God in prayer, characteristically, as His "Father." He spoke as though the raising of Lazarus was something that the Father had already decreed, which was true (cf. v. 11). His prayer was not a request for Lazarus' resurrection. Such a prayer would have glorified the Father. Rather it was a prayer of thanksgiving for what the Father would shortly do: "I thank You that You have heard Me." It had the effect of focusing attention on the Son as God's Agent (God the Father) in performing the miracle. Jesus' prayer also had the effect of drawing the on lookers into His intimate relationship with the Father, and proving that He really did do nothing independently of the Father (cf. 5:19-47). Jesus' public prayer here is a good reminder that all leaders in public prayer should take those present into account when they pray. We should do so, not by "playing to the gallery" (cf. Matt. 6:5), but by voicing prayers that are appropriate in view of who is present."

What we have here then is every single commentator denies that Jesus is praying to the Father for assistance, permission or power because of his supposed status of being a mere slave. We see the Scripture, the lexicon, and commentators all unanimously agree Jesus prays to set an example, and to show his perfect union with the Father, how the Father could never reject him, since they always work in perfect unison, and they are completely one in unity. 

So I challenge SADELF to produce a single verse where Peter or any other apostle makes these claims.

RIP Elfie

Stick with the Rookies in the future where you belong.

Roman Catholic Apologist arguing Jesus cannot be God just because he does what God does since that would make Peter, God aswell!

Lakeshow/CT_WestCoast exposed and refuted

Here was my response to this claim that turned into a round for round:

Dk-man7: Acts 3:6 But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!”
Dk-man7: Peter didn't raise the dead, Jesus did
Dk-man7: Acts 3"16 And on the basis of faith in Jesus’ name, his very name has made this man – whom you see and know – strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all.
Dk-man7: Acts 4: 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?”
Dk-man7: 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man – by what means this man was healed –10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.
Dk-man7: exposed
Dk-man7: ACTS 9: 36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas). She was continually doing good deeds and acts of charity. 37 At that time she became sick and died. When they had washed her body, they placed it in an upstairs room. 38 Because Lydda was near Joppa, when the disciples heard that Peter was there, they sent twomen to him and urged him, “Come to us without delay.”
39 So Peter got up and went with them, and when he arrived they brought him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him, crying and showing him the tunics and other clothing Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 40 But Peter sent them all outside, KNELT DOWN, AND PRAYED. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, GET UP.” Then she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
Dk-man7:
17 After this the son of the woman who owned the house got sick. His illness was so severe he could no longer breathe.
18 She asked Elijah, “Why, prophet, have you come to me to confront me with my sin and kill my son?”
19 He said to her, “Hand me your son.” He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him down on his bed.
20 Then he called out to the LORD, “O LORD, my God, are you also bringing disaster on this widow I am staying with by killing her son?”
21 He stretched out over the boy three times and called out to the LORD, “O LORD, my God, please let this boy’s breath return to him.”
22 The LORD answered Elijah’s prayer; the boy’s breath returned to him and he lived.
Dk-man7: 1 Kings 17
Dk-man7: 2 kings 4: 32 When Elisha arrived at the house, there was the child lying dead on his bed. 33 He went in by himself and closed the door. Then he prayed to the LORD. 34 He got up on the bed and spread his body out over the boy; he put his mouth on the boy’s mouth, his eyes over the boy’s eyes, and the palms of his hands against the boy’s palms. He bent down over him, and the boy’s skin grew warm. 35 Elisha went back and walked around in the house. THEN he got up on the bed again and bent down over him. The child sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.
      CT_wESt CoaSt came online at  02:42 PM
Dk-man7: 2 kings 13: 20 Elisha died and was buried. Moabite raiding parties invaded the land at the beginning of the year. 21 One day some men were burying a man when they spotted a raiding party. So they threw the dead man into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life and stood on his feet. <<<< his corpse raised the dead, not him
Dk-man7: EXPOSED
Dk-man7: NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE EVER ROSE THE DEAD, U ARE SMOKED, they merely INVOKED the power of THE LORD
Dk-man7: U ARE DONE LIKE A SNAKE WITH TOOTH PASTE

EXPOSING CT

CT_wESt CoaSt: DK , dude , Notice , the FATHER GAVE JESUS ALL the Authority , so Jesus was envoking this POWER from the FATHER 
CT_wESt CoaSt: and Notice how jesus passed this Power to Peter 
CT_wESt CoaSt: we can go into much more also 
CT_wESt CoaSt: oh wait then u would have to admit apostalic succession 
Dk-man7: False on all accounts. 1) The "all authority" has been given to me is a statement post-ressurection, so how does Jesus raise the dead before his ressurection if he didn't have the authority apriori? 2) Authority does not mean ABILITY, anyone can give AUTHORITY to do something, but if someone is physically handicap and unable to perform the function, then he still can't, thus Jesus would need the abilities and power, even if he was given the authority
Dk-man7: The prophets also invoked YAHWEH, where as Jesus invoked his own authority
Dk-man7: Jesus did not give this divine authority to "Peter", Jesus never made any of the claims Jesus made, he merely invoked the authority of Jesus
Dk-man7: if Peter's authority is meant to be the same authority as Jesus , then why didn't Peter possess his authority and stop invoking Jesus ?
Dk-man7: All and all, you still haven't shown Peter raised the dead.
Dk-man7: So your argument against Fyreflye is bogus
CT_wESt CoaSt: Not at all , Jesus raised by the fathers authority
CT_wESt CoaSt: Peter raised by the AUTHORITY of the lord which was GIVEN to jesus by the father
CT_wESt CoaSt: it still shhows a succession
Dk-man7: Again false analogy and distortion of the word "GIVEN". If jesus ONLY RECEIVED ALL AUTHORITY after his ressurection, how was he able to GIVE The disciples authority to bind and loose what is in heaven and earth in MATTHEW 16?
Dk-man7: Your distortion of "given" won't work.
Dk-man7: And don't run from the question: If Peter had the same kind of authority as Jesus, why does Peter not appeal to his own divine authority as the Messiah, make divine claims and claim to be the truth, ressurection and life?
Dk-man7: 1) Only God can do miracles 2) Jesus performs miracles 3) Therefore Jesus is God
CT_wESt CoaSt: Peter did a miracle....so he is God...cool
Dk-man7: Now would you like to show where Peter does a miracle through his own divine union as a person in the Godhead?
Dk-man7: Or are you going to keep appealing to passages that expose you
Dk-man7: ?
Dk-man7: You also made a false analogy by comparing Jesus appeal to the Father as an authority vs Peter's appeal to Jesus. Jesus appeals to the Father NOT in the same sense that Peter appeals to the name of the Lord Jesus. Jesus claims all the attributes of divinity and claims he can do nothing of himself but perform whatever the Father does. Where does Peter claim he has these divine attributes, titles and functions and that he together with the father performs the miracles?
Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.
Dk-man7: Anyway you are toasted
Dk-man7: I suggest giving up this argument
Dk-man7: And let me know if you have any other stupid objections
CT_wESt CoaSt: 40Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
CT_wESt CoaSt:  42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.
CT_wESt CoaSt: WOW on the father 
Dk-man7: 1) 42I knew that you ALWAYS  hear me --- In context of John this is because Jesus is the Son of God who is ONE with God and they always work in perfect union<
Dk-man7: but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” <<<<  exposes u
Dk-man7: I SAID THIS ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE
Dk-man7: but this still dodges the question
Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.
Dk-man7: Jesus appeals to the Father NOT in the same sense that Peter appeals to the name of the Lord Jesus. Jesus claims all the attributes of divinity and claims he can do nothing of himself but perform whatever the Father does. Where does Peter claim he has these divine attributes, titles and functions and that he together with the father performs the miracles?
Dk-man7: Now show where Peter claims to perform all the divine functions that Jesus or the Father performs because of his DIVINE UNION in one essence with either Jesus or God
Dk-man7: exposed
Dk-man7: Show us where Peter says "I don't do these things BY MYSELF, but WITH GOD ALMIGHTY TOGETHER WE DO ALL THESE MIRACLES"
Dk-man7: Which is exactly what Jesus claimed, HE CAN DO EVERYTHING THE FATHER DOES, BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A PERFECT DIVINE UNION
Dk-man7: EXPOSED
CT_wESt CoaSt: its obvious divine what PETER is doing and its beacuse Jesus proclaims ttghis to him..what U BIND ON EARTH is bound in heaven 
CT_wESt CoaSt: even peter is in UNION with God almighty
Dk-man7: Peter is not in divine union
Dk-man7: yawn
Dk-man7: Anyway that was your last straw, you are busted
Dk-man7: That was a low retort, even u can manage better than that
Dk-man7: so CT, do you admit that God granted Peter the ability to RAISE PEOPLE FROM THE DEAD? You think God gave Peter this ability?
Dk-man7: CT, if that is the case, please explain how Peter was FULLY HUMAN if his human nature possessed one of God's divine attributes of rebirth and creation
Dk-man7: exposed again
CT_wESt CoaSt: Of course God gave peter the abuility like the Father gave Jesus the authority
CT_wESt CoaSt: very simple
CT_wESt CoaSt: 
Dk-man7: dam YOU JUST CRUSHED YOURSELF
Dk-man7: you just SAID the Father GAVE BOTH JESUS AND PETER DIVINE ABILITIES
Dk-man7: U ARE SMOKED
Dk-man7: this is going on the blog
Dk-man7: you need to learn from your mistakes
CT_wESt CoaSt: lol SHOW ME where JESUS SAYS I am god
CT_wESt CoaSt: 
CT_wESt CoaSt: put that on ur blog tOO
Dk-man7: hopefully CBD banns you for good
CT_wESt CoaSt: i really dont care 
CT_wESt CoaSt: tell cbd urself man....u want me banned....who gives a shit lol
Dk-man7: he already banned u
Dk-man7: even before i told him
Dk-man7: he said YOU ARE A MUSILIM
Dk-man7: is that true?
CT_wESt CoaSt: AM UNIVERSALIST
Dk-man7: GBU

For more information on Jesus himself (with the Father) performing miracles proving his divinity see:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_miracles.htm

Surely if Jesus alone can perform the same functions as the Father, this makes him divine.

And remember Prophets, Apostles and servants of God do not perform miracles with God (since they don't have the ability), they merely pray and beseech God who by himself revives dead-men and creates life.

Australian Muslims - Gotta luv em