mamaput,

Do not forget there are also the laws of the church.
Were is it written that the only true book is the bible.
The bible was written by men.
Do you know that the 12 apostles were illiterates, They no go school.
That means someone wrote for them ,they went to writers.
The bible is edited  . I do not want to know how many books are still hidden from us.
Life is more than only a bible.

The laws of the church is not binding on the Believer.  The only binding document we have is the Bible.  When the church doctrine and laws are contrary to the Word of God, guess which one should be forfeited.   Anyway, the church makes laws for administrative reasons and no church claims any spiritual advantage of one Believer over another who does not visit jerusalem.  it is just one of those things.
the Bible validates itself in more ways than one.  Dont forget that it is a compilation of dozens of author over a period of hundreds of years, yet their writings are complimentary of each other.  The Bible is inspired of God, is what the Bible testifies of itself.  It says men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
You are wrong about the 12 Apostles being illiterate.  Not that this makes any difference whatsoever.  I should bring to your remebrance that Matthew was a tax collector who worked for the Governement in his days.  he couln't have been illiterate.  Imagine a Government accountant or auditor who can't read or write.  That is so absurd.  Can you remember also that the Book of Revelation was written by John the Beloved when he was in isolation on the Island of Patmos?  How could he have written those revelations down if he could not read or write.
As a matter of generality however, the Bible declared a lot of the Disciples to be unlearned.  This is different from illiteracy.  Jesus was known to be unlearned, yet we saw Him in the synagogues reading from the book of isaiah.  just thoughts for you to ponder upon.

so the pope and the bishop of ?
are puppets.

Is peter not the first head of the church the rock.
What about all the talk of what is bound on eath will be bound in heaven??
were priests not getting married be 4 who told them to stop

Mamaput,
Dont put words into our mouth.  No one is suggesting anything about the Popes and Bishops.  That will be a discussion for another thread.

Peter was a fisher his brother too .Ok the tax collector could read but he only wrote the book of Matthew. you want to tell be they all learned how to read and write.
I think maybe jesus leard to read and write in Egypt do not forget the missing years.

Mamaput,

Is peter not the first head of the church the rock.
What about all the talk of what is bound on eath will be bound in heaven??
were priests not getting married be 4 who told them to stop

Is it not ironic that you do not take the Bible as the final authority, yet you base your beliefs of peter being the foundation of the church from itscontents?  Anyway, to answer your question.  I personally do not believe that Jesus was making Peter the foundation of His church,, rather, it was Peter's confessions that Jesus was refering to.   Mt 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..  If you have a study Bible, you will find out that the Greek word for Peter is PETROS and it means a stone, however the Rock Jesus said He will build His church on is the Greek Word PETRA which means a solid rock.  This tells you that Jesus was talking about 2 differnt things.  
You can go search for a study bible to find this out yourself.  There are many instances shown from the scriptures also to suggests that Peter was not the most important member of the Apostles.  if you sincerely want more proofs, I can give them to you, though this is not the forum for that.

I take the bible as a history book.
There are also good prayers in it yes i love palms.
The bible is a book of records and like in history there are some things that do not reim.
There are some facts and some hear say .
I also know peter was not the closest to Jesus but he was the first.
All there things are just theories .
I think i should go and read the Davinich code or what ever its called.
Do not for get b4 the Greek version there was an other verson. the scrips were not written in greek.

Peter was a fisher his brother too .Ok the tax collector could read but he only wrote the book of Matthew. you want to tell be they all learned  how to read and write. I think maybe jesus leard to read and write in Egypt do not forget the missing years.

 Whether they could read or write doesn't make any difference.  You can not prove either way from the Bible, but they are indeed the author of several letters of the new Testament.
I think you are stretching it a little bit by suggesting that Jesus learned to read in Egypt.  You know He went there as a baby and we know He was back in His native country at the age of twelve.  We dont know exactly how many years he was in Egypt, but all the same, He wan't considered someone of extraordinary learning as Paul was for instance.

The Old Testaments was written in Hebrew, and Aramaic, while the new Testament was written in Greek.  Remeber the Davinci code is only a fiction.  You are yet to understand your Bible and you think the Davinci code will help?  I can see you are not strong in your faith, but anyway, I will suggest you take the Bible more seriously and do an in-depth study with the aid of tools that are helpful. Hear what Jesus has to say about the scriptures and your life: John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

you see l have learned something new.
I may have more faith than many because my mind is open to all.
I will never say that christianity is the only true religion.
Or that the God we all worship is not the same God.
I find that , that many call faith is just intolaranze and most of them have not been put to the test.
I was looking at football nigeria playing was ist Egypt? well one woman shouted jesusis greater than Mohammad and therenwere some Moslims sitting there.
If all these people are so strong in faith why is nigeria so bad.
I will not say i am not with out sin.
But i am not Greedy , i do not steal . I do not swear by god knowing am liying be4 i even open my mouth.
Its not every one that shouts god god that will go to heaven.
Faith is a very strong word very strong not many people have it so i do not mind you telling me i have little faith. I do not fool my self or others .somepeople lie so much that they start to believe their lies.(a general statement )

@ajia23,

Hello again, and thank you for taking the time to point out a few things that I would agree with; but of those that bear some concern, here are my observations:

ajia23:

While the bible or the Quran does not say Judas died for his own sins, if we are to go by one very popular quote from the bible-the wages of sin is death, then it will be safe to conclude that if it were true that Judas was crucified, then it can only be to atone for his sins of betraying Jesus. There was no better way of putting it since it's the Muslim belief. So thinking I was throwing cheap punches was wrong.

I really don't want to overflog this issue - you threw a cheap punch: live with it; otherwise try not using it at others if you can't deal with it when thrown back at you. You recognised that "the bible or the Quran does not say Judas died for his own sins", so what's the backdoor theory you're interjecting here by making an inference which neither books make? "If it were true that Judas was crucified" is a quote you continue to pander off when you shouldn't even go there at all: because when you go back and re-read the rejoinders, that suggestion has been yours and none else from the word get-go. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible says what you've severally stated about Judas; so why your repetition of it?

ajia23:

Your assumption that I am Shiite is incorrect. And the sunni do not believe the caliphs were disciples, they are companions and not disciples like those associated with Jesus. So everybody that lived in the time of the prophet (SAW) was his companion.

My assumption then is incorrect; but you're very wrong about the Sunni view all the same. Whether you call them followers, companions, adherents, or whatever, they still have the same basic meaning as 'disciples' - it's only a matter of nomenclature. Christians today are disciples of Jesus Christ - His followers; so trying to be corrective about disciples of Mohammed being just his companions does not take away from what I stated earlier.

Further, you're doubly wrong to assume that everybody that lived in the time of the prophet (and who followed him) was his companion, and not disciples like those associated with Jesus. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, were close companions of Muhammad in just the same way that Jesus had close disciples. It's even interesting to note that not every Muslim today is a companion of Mohammed the way his closest followers were during his time. Zaid ibn Thabit, one of his companions was instrumental in collating some of the Qur'anic texts; you wouldn't suggest for a moment that every companion of Mohammed held this closeness to the Prophet, would you? Whether you want to call them companions, followers, or whatever, they were still Mohammed's disciples - nothing more or less.

ajia23:

That he was a failure is only a matter of your own conjuring. Even TIme Magazine voted him as the most influetial and successful man of all time-ahead of Jesus.

At least I'm free to conjure anything about Mohammed in exactly the way he lived his life. He may not be a failure in your own conjuring - good for you. And when you appeal to TIME Magazine as a score chart for Mohammed's performance, what criteria did you take into account, or which did you leave out? The magazine had their own conjuring about Mohammed (albeit, most probably political) - and it suits you well; if they had also conjured his failures, what would you have said?

ajia23:

If he spread Islam by sword, how did he convert Medina with only two other companions? Using the machine Gun I suppose? And if he was a failure, Islam will not be as large as it is today when viewed against the backdrop that it came 600 years after christianity.

Measuring the spread of Islam against the backdrop that it came 600 years after Christianity does not deny the fact that it was spread by the sword, and that Mohammed failed to convert the inhabitants of Mecca before his escape to Medina. True or false?

The conversion of those at Medina still does not negate the fact that the history of Islam bore the sword as its veritable tool of propagation. Or are you denying that Islam was a forceful religion imposed upon people with the edge of the sword? Let me remind you of what the Encyclopedia of Islam says in section 11, page 3,245: "Spreading Islam by means of the sword is a duty incumbent upon all Muslims." When you go through the Qur'an and the Hadith, you'll find a harvest of statements that underscore this sword-propagation of the "religion of peace", as it is often refered to by Muslims. I'm not trying to be hostile towards anyone, but let's bear out the facts that you're trying to gloss over in contemporary political cosmetics.

Qur'an:
Sura 2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Hadith 4:80
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah's Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the 'killer who also get martyred (In Allah's Cause)."

Bukhari 1:24
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Mohammed is Allah's prophet."

Even then, that the sword is contemporaneous in Muslim thought is borne out in page 243 of the Dictionary of Islam: "When an infidel's country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

1. the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state

2. the payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained "protection" and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters; and

3. death by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax."

Did you notice the third alternative - "death by the sword?" The Islamic propaganda that the sword does not play an important role in Muslim propagation today is simply disingenuous. So, whatever Islamic scholars would excuse themselves about these glaring facts does not take away from the assertion that Islam used the sword as its main instrument of propagation.

More later.

mamaput:

you see l have learned something new.
I may have more faith than many because my mind is open to all.
I will never say that christianity is the only true religion.
Or that the God we all worship is not the same God.
I find that , that many call faith is just intolaranze and most of them have not been put to the test.
I was looking at football nigeria playing was ist Egypt? well one woman shouted jesusis greater than Mohammad and therenwere some Moslims sitting there.
If all these people are so strong in faith why is nigeria so bad.
I will not say i am not with out sin.
But i am not Greedy , i do not steal . I do not swear by god knowing am liying be4 i even open my mouth.
Its not every one that shouts god god that will go to heaven.
Faith is a very strong word very strong not many people have it so i do not mind you telling me i have little faith. I do not fool my self or others .somepeople lie so much that they start to believe their lies.(a general statement )

I find it extremely difficult to understand your train of thots, that others are not practicing what they preach is no excuse to sit on the fence. Yes some people use religion to mask their intolerance does not mean we should be areligious.
Open mindedness is not the same as having faith. The christian faith is not the same as the secular definition of "faith".
"Talking about Jesus is not the same as having faith in Him. Even the bible says not everyone that says Lord, Lord will enter into My kingdom.
You are not greedy, you do not steal, neither do you swear; excellent but by works shall no man see God. For all our righteousness are as filthy rags before Him. We cannot keep the commandments on our own, infact the bible says for ALL have sinned and falled short of the glory of God. Our efforts not to sin cannot bring us to God, Jesus Christ is the only way to Him!

that is were i disagree with you .
even our forfather that were good and worshipped Ani will also find their way to god.

@ajia23,

As promised, so. . .

ajia23:

He ascended to God in human form, so excavating his "body" will only help us scientifically verify that our postulations on Judas are correct. We think logically, don't u agree?

At least you agree that He ascended, even if you reject the fact that He first died. My Bible never supposes that He would just ascend without first having been put to death and rising again: "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." (Eph. 4:9-10). Your logical inference is weak and I've dealt with that earlier on.

ajia23:

Well it was you who said

This is one reason why I'm taking my time to answer some of your requests.

, and so I was surprised when you said you could respond as you pleased, I didn't even suggest you shouldn't. Hmm. Seems to me like a one-man riot squad who on a discriminate shooting spree, shot himself afterall.

'I take my time to answer some of your request' simply means that I don't open my mouth and close my eyes in order to make unfounded statements like you and your team. Before I post anything in a sensitive issue like this, I think it through, check out its sources, ascertain that they are not prejudiced, and then post to inform, educate and challenge - as the inputs of others have served me, thankfully. On the other hand, what you and your crowd have been doing goes far more than shooting yourselves in the leg - when you go through my posts, get ready to pick your pieces, because you quite often do not demonstrate enough wisdom to follow things through carefully, and then make unfounded statements that are neither suggested by the Qur'an nor the Bible.

ajia23:

I see your point about Nuru, and I admit you are right. Ok, may be re-writing the rules, would help. A muslim should not use the Quran to try prove his case since christians do not believe in it.

Even when Muslims do not believe in the Qur'an, I still quote it where and when necessary; and when anyone points out my mistakes or wrong inferences, I take it and concede to my poor scholarship on that. So, this statement you've just made simply begs the question and is suspect of giving the idea that you're finding the Qur'an untenable in proving your logic by the hour, not so? I told you to dress warm - I haven't forgotten my promise to you and nuru, even though I have been busy of late.

ajia23:

Instead, he should resort to scientific evidence that is fact accross board. Ditto for vice versa. However, opposing camps can quote from the book of the opposing religion. I hope this is clear enoug, and you accept it. That way, we will be able to point out all the faults as we see them in the other person's book, and will enable us save typing many characters to prove our case from our books even though we  know people would not believe it.

I don't tire of typing as many characters (even with typos where I'm in a hurry) as I possibly can to make my point; that's even more the case when I try to play it safe by carefully laying out the verses so readers can understand where I'm coming from and what is at the core of a particular enquiry. The whole excuse you're ferreting recently gives the idea that you're unable to defend your ideas, abi? Okay, I'll not be too quick to assume that; but it just doesn't make sense to ignore the appropriate sources to make a point.

Your last statement is probably your own opinion. I expect that in due course, you will see how wrong you are. Islam and logic are in perfect harmony.

True, that. When I deem it applicable, you'll be reading my logical syllogism that most Muslims have not been able to stand up to. That is not to say that there's no logical application to any aspect of both faiths - Islam and Christianity - but I just want to share with you that logic is too narrow and weak to explicate certain issues in either  of them.

Warm regards.

Mamaput,

I appreciate your sincerity more than you can ever know.  No doubt there are a lot of people who do not practice what they believe.  That is a situation that God is aware of and that is why we have 1 John 1:8-10 to fall back upon: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
However, never let your focus be on people, not any Pastor or the Pope, because they will fail you.  Your focus should be on Jesus Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
You will never be a better Christian if your focus is on others or even yourself and not on Jesus.  Faith is not something "out there" that is unattainable, rather Jesus said if you have faith as small as a mustard seed.  All He requires is to put your complete faith and trust in Him.  leave Him to do the rest.  The challenge is on Jesus to prove Himself to you once you put your complete faith in Him.
When you study who He is, then you'll find out He said in John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me..  This will let you understand the gravity jesus placed on the practitioners and apostles of other false religion as stated in John 10:1 -
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
You have to come to a point where you Jesus becomes ALL or NOTHING to you.  he does not really seek a 'middle ground'.

@ajia23,

By the way, could I ask you on what side of Islam you fall into: what for you is the authoritatiive source of Islamic life and practice: the Qur'an, the Hadith, or both of them.

this law goes for Christians only and not all.
Dont they say Jesus is love.
If jesus is love then if it is as you say he will not turn his back on so many.
As for that confession ho yes dont make me laugh.
(I will do this and this and on sunday i will confess god will forgive me once more over and over again) Is that not the way most people think .?

@mamaput,

I think you're making a mistake about so many issues.

What so many people think is not the same as what the Bible actually says, yes or no?

When what people think holds more sway than what the book says, you'll still get issues mixed up.

mamaput:

this law goes for Christians only and not all.
Dont they say Jesus is love.
If jesus is love then if it is as you say he will not turn his back on so many.
As for that confession ho yes don't make me laugh.
(I will do this and this and on sunday i will confess god will forgive me once more over and over again) Is that not the way most people think .?

Apologies mamaput, i have never considered roman catholicism as true christianity. For one there is too much emphasis on the worship of persons which is strongly forbideen in the bible. There is nothing like purgatory in the bible, Peter was NOT the first pope as Christ came not to institute a man as a sovereign Lord over all but to redeem man unto himself.
One of the strongest points that the "religious" men of those days had against Jesus was that he forgave sins because they naively considered Him A MAN LIKE THEM! The same thing is ufortunately happening in roman catholicism today; no man hath power to forgive sins except Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus indeed is love, He never turns His back on anyone. Infact the Jesus said; i have come, not for the saved but to bring many back unto repentance. Jesus said, behold I stand at the door and knock (the door of the heart), he who opens the door, i will come in and sup with Him. The invitation is not to a select few, it is to AS MANY AS BELIEVED ON HIS NAME! He reminds us that He is no respecter of persons but:
Acts 10: 34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Not the emphasis on He that feareth Him. The bible admonishes us that while WE ALL were yet sinners, Christ died for the UNGODLY! He dies not just for a select few but for ALL so that those who believe might be saved. He goes on to say that it is not His will that ANY should perish but:
2 Pet 3: 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Note the emphasis on NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH. Indeed it is Christ's will that ALL should come to repentance, His arms are wide open to as many and any one that would accept Him. The truth is not all will and that is why we have a choice, Christ does not make forceful demands, He paid the ultimate sacrifice for us all but in the end, it is the choices that we make that will determine our eternity!

this law goes for Christians only and not all. Dont they say Jesus is love. If jesus is love then if it is as you say he will not turn his back on so many. As for that confession ho yes don't make me laugh. (I will do this and this and on sunday i will confess god will forgive me once more over and over again) Is that not the way most people think .?

It seems to me you dont even believe the Bible at all. Why then do you classify yourself a Christian? If you think God's Word does not mean anything, why are you so quick to associate yourself with the faith? The WORD became flesh is what the Bible says, and that means Jesus is a totally of the Word of God which we find in the Bible. Not taking His word seriously is the same as not taking Him seriously.
That God is love does not mean he wont turn you to hell if you reject the costly salvation He provided in Christ. You see, God's mercy only comes after His claims of Justice has being met. Ro 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Note the Bible says in that verse that God needed to be just before He can become a justifier by forgiving you your sins.
So how do you receive forgiveness if you dont confess them? The Bible says your words will either justif you or condemn you. You have no idea what importance God places on words. I find it hard to even begin to tell you the basis of all these from the scriptures since you do not hold it in high esteem anyway. I wish you will take His word more seriously as it contains the foundation of the Christian faith.
The psalms you talked about says this: Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my pathpsalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

I i Robb out a bank every Monday and confess every Friday God will not forgive me .
If I have it in mind to sin and think what dose it matter i will just go to confession what then,

I think you're making a mistake about so many issues.

What so many people think is not the same as what the Bible actually says, yes or no?

When what people think holds more sway than what the book says, you'll still get issues mixed up.

What dose the bible say .Is it not so that everyone interprets it they way they want.
Everybody calls on the bible but who lives by it? nobody.
Any one that says only trough Jesus will :::::::::: is intolerant.
there are so many religions in this world and i claim that even the Muslims are more tolerant because for them an unbeliever is someone that dose not believe in God at all and not someone with another religion.
Every one should live by their laws and be more tolerant for others.
I have not yet met anyone here that stretches out a brotherly hand.
And for my views i am now called a faithless unbeliever.
To be very honest i better keep my mouth shut

@mlks_baby

You keep on referring to lackof wisdom and unfounded allegations. The only person guilty of these is you. You research before you talk? Wow, I guess research must mean something else to you-probably mediocrity, yeah it sums it all up. That the Quran does not say Judas died did not mean that there were no other Islamic sources. The hadiths for one say so and I believe in the hadiths as much as the Quran.

When I stated that we shouldn't quote the Holy books (our own that is) to justify our claims I also invited scrutiny of the Holy books from the other divide, which in my own case means you can tear the Quran apart if you so wish to, and bring out perceived mistakes. Now does this not suggest to you that I am so confident about it? I mean what's all this talk of not being sure? It is you who is so insecure that when lessons, verses or passages from the bible are quoted, u choose the easy way out-declaring them as unfounded. Do you mean that the biblical verse that said the wages of sin is death was fabricated? And if Judas died immediately after his treachery, couldn't it be inferred he died for his actions? It was even stated in the verse you yourself or TayoD quoted when the bible described how Judas died. All I am saying is, I belived he died in another way, and I infact agree it may be that he died atoning for his sin. I hope it's now easy for you to understand?

Those verses you quoted from the Quran are small when compared with the ones I know. Yes, the Quran orders Muslims to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. I know the bible orders christians to do the same in the old testament when God told the Jews to smite them (pagans) and kill them, burn their places of worship etc. Something they carried out ffectively. And if you say Islam spread by the sword, it is correct, but lets not ignore that it also had an arm that spread by the good of which it is made. Christianity is even more guilty than Islam in this respect. It not only spread by the sword, it also did so by the gun, and even promoted slavery-something Islam sought to abolish 1400 years ago. So my dear, remove the log in your eye, before removing the speck in your neighbour's.

I can now see your ignorance about Islamic Issues. Ask any muslim, anybody that lived during the time of Muhammad (SAW0 and was muslim was his companion. The companions may have had varying degrees of closeness to the Prophet (SAW), but they were not disciples like in the case of Jesus(ASW) where we had 12 that had to spread his teachings. You talked of Abu Musa, was there only one Abu Musa (RA) please, do some real research and stop paying lip service to the word. If you studied usoolul Hadith which I studied to some extent, you would understand that a lot of people collected the sayings and doings of the Prophet (SAW), and they were all considered to be his companions. At no single instance did the Prophet (SAW) have a constant number of people with him.

What is the use of quoting the bible to me, when I probably would disbelieve the authenticity of the verse if it does not corroborate what I believe in? But since you never tire of typing,  please continue. I will however state the Islamic beliefs whether they are supported by the Quran or Hadiths, apply logic to them, and spare the whole house of boring quotes. You are welcome to present your fabled syllogism so  long as they support your case, and are not just a ploy for you to show you studied some logic in school.

I await thee,

mamput,

Those are your views.  no one has said anything to you here outside of the Bible.  perhaps, you should interprete what has been said has God's view of your stand and not what another man thinks.  On the other hand, your views are nor\t correlated by the scriptures, and I am left with no choice than to say you speak for yourself.

Perhaps, you want us to be politically correct and say that you are right, when the scriptures say otherwise.  I choose to stand by what the Bible says.  I'm sorry if anyone has offended you, but the truth can be very offensive too.  Jesus who is the truth, was so offensive to the people of His days that they killed Him.  I am not surprised by the secular stand of today.

ajia23,

I agree with you in principle that it takes blood to atone for sins as described in the Book of Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. But how can Judas atone for his sins with his sinful blood? The reason why Jesus had to come die for us was because His blood is holy, and a sacrifice of holy blood once and for all meets God's requirements for the sins of mankind. Think of it, if it takes the blood of any sinner to atone for sins, don't you think Adam would have sacrificed himself for his generation?

Judas' death is no more than suicide, and Jesus said in Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

@mamaput

Please do not shut up. I understand your plight. You see, one thing I find interesting abut the christian faith is that it is a religion of the majority. Whatever the majority says holds sawy, irrespective of whether it is true or not. When I was a kid, I used to attend Church of God mission, and then later Neighbours international. At that time, everybody said Jesus is the Son of God. I mean, in the 70's that's all we used to hear. Allof a sudden in the 80's and 90's, we started hearing Jesus is God. And of course the bible still provided evidence for this. Methinks that whenever the rich countries feel like changing the doctrine that is taught especially in protestant churches, they call a few misiters and pastors together, show them the new doctrine, and back them up with money. Before long, it catches like wild fire. During the time of Jesus, evidence available in history books show that he was considered human. 400 years later, he became divine by an act of a meeting in 325 A.D. You see, that's how it works. And it's this problem of declaring anything that contradicts their beliefs as devlish that plunged mankind into the dark ages. Thank God for the scientific renaissance, we still would have been in bondage.

They claim muslims are intolerant, and are quick to point out that we are prone to fights, but forget the immediate past history of christianity and it's flag bearers. It may interest you to know that God said a certain group of christians would enter heaven, in the Quran. He said they were christians, and they were Sabians, they believed in their lord, and they will be admitted into Gardens under which rivers flow. These particular group of christians are the monotheist. Not the polytheists that are prevalent today. And God even allows muslims to marry them, nd eat their food. How much tolerant can a religion get?

@ TayoD

Please explain fully and in the most simple manner the statement, the wages of sin is death.

In simplicity, sin is what brought about the physical and spiritual death in the world today. Adam died spiritually as soon as he sinned in the garden and his fellowship with God was broken. He died physically about 900 years later.

This sin nature was passed down to every man born of woman because the seed of a man (the sperm) is involded in the birth process. That is why we all die today. This should tell you that the only reason why Jesus was to be born by a virgin was so the sin nature could be avoided. Had a man being involved in His birth, He would have been sinful. Remember in the Book of Genesis, the Bible said it is the 'seed of the woman' that will crush the serpent's head.

If you are trying to say that every sin is atoned for by the sinner's death, then every lie must also be followed by hanging as there is no small sin before God.

@ajia23,

I actually thought you'd be mature enough to read and assimilate what you come across in the threads. Let me make it simple: You suggested that Judas might have been crucified - neither the Qur'an nor the Bible said so. If you insist, please provide the references.

Second, you couldn't reconcile your scholarship to the fact that Islam was spread by the sword: I provided the verses from both the Qur'an and the Hadith - what wrong is in that? If you insist it was not the case, please explain the hadiths referenced in my replies.

Third, that Judas committed suicide by hanging is stated in the Bible. That does not translate into the atoning of his sins. If you disagree, please expound on your logic, bearing in mind that Judas in the Bible committed that in frustration and nothing more or less.

Fourth, I've never expressed insecurity at anyone quoting the Bible - if you disagree, please reference the lines that inform that thinking of yours. I earlier stated that as long as it further sheds light on any points, both the Qur'an and the Bible should be quoted to back the claims that we make across board. As an example, I posited that Mohammed spread Islam by the sword; if you wanted me to prove the point, I left you references from all three sources: the Qur'an, the Hadith and Islamic history and encyclopedia. What crime have I committed in that?

Fifth, you don't dictate the flavour of how I should respond to enquiries: if it is necessary to quote references from any source or not, it is entirely up to me to decide what to do or not do. I could agree or disagree to the effect of showing why a source does not establish a point or otherwise does. What's your campaign to the contrary going to achieve?

Sixth, that you're mixing up the Old Testament and the New shows how poor your readership skills are; unless you want to refer to the Jews as 'Christians', which in fact Mohammed was not that gullible to do. I offer this anecdote: read the New Testament and bring me verses to prove the point that Jesus Christ was as violent as Mohammed. Even so,  the bloodshed that trailed the history of Christianity does not establish any hint to the suggestion that Christianity in essense is violent by default as is the case with Islam. The suicide bombers are excused today by Muslim scholars on the premise that no such thing is enjoined upon Muslims by the Qur'an. If that holds any iota of truth, where in the New Testament do you read of an injunction of the atrocities committed in Christ's name? Jesus Himself knew such things would happen (e.g., see John 16:2), and a casual reading of the NT will show clearly that those atrocities were not ordered by Christ in the way that Mohammed ordered murders and oppression as 'revelations' he received from Allah.

Seventh, I've said that disciples and companions are just a matter of nomenclature. Most Islamic scholars use the word 'disciples' as referring to the companions of Mohammed; so your noise making is unnecessary. There are loads of Mohammeds, Zaibs, Abdullahs, etc; and when you read the list I provided in their contexts, the point is carried that Mohammed had close followers in a distinct manner than the others, and I wasn't confusing the names, was I?

Eight, you probably may not believe a quote I present to you - as you may not believe any one I referenced from the Qur'an. I never argued against your use of logic, nor did I formally study logic in school. You therefore should not begin to sound intimidated by your latest hoo-ha about this point. You call the references boring: do you feel the Qur'anic verses I quoted are as boring as well, since it is not only the Bible I quoted? You should really calm down and focus on my claims: where you disagree, please provide references to counter my claims. I've stated quite a few, and I'll list them summarily so you don't lose sight of them and instead waste arguments on minute points:

    # Mohammed was a violent man by default and the Qur'an and Hadith bear testimony to the fact.

    # Islam was spread by the sword and the Qur'an, Hadith and Islamic history books all testify to that.

    # Allah in the Qur'an is not monotheistic, as the Qur'an is undecided whether he was a singular being or many beings.

There are even more, such as that the Qur'an has been editted and some verses removed contrary to the propaganda that Islamic scholars have sold to the world - and again, Islamic scholars and historic sources clearly testify to that.

The problem many Muslims have in reconciling their faith to these staggering claims is that most people do not have a good grasp on the facts and that's the cheap advantage that the muslim world has been relying on for ages.

I do not want to know how many people were killed not only by the sword in the name of the Christian God only a few years ago the pope apologized for that.

ajia23,

You misunderstood my reference to Israel. Maybe u should read d post where I origianally mentioned Israel and Iran to Nuru and his reply. I wasn't talking about the problem btw Israel and Palestine. I was only telling Nuru that the problem Israel has with the Iran and other Muslim countries is religious. I dont want to discuss the issue btw the two countries, but I must say that I have nothing at all against Palestinians or even muslims. I was only refuting some of Nuru's claims.

Concerning the Iranian president, I didn't say he killed. I said he's doing his thing (issuing threats to Israel etc) in the name of Islam. Even this nuclear weapon issue, he's brought religion into it in several statements.

mamaput,

the church is founded upon Jesus and believes and accepts the bible as the Word of God. Every church law that contradicts the bible is false. Christians live according to the bible and not the local church's laws.

If you really want to know if the bible has been adulterated, I guess you can check out different sources. However, there is textual evidence that no fundamental Christian doctrine rests on a disputed passage of the bible.

The bible IS a historical book, just that it is much more than that. the events in the bible weren't just cooked up, they have been dated by comparing them with other historical accounts.

mamaput,

i'm not a history person, but i believe the killing u're talking about wasn't limited to non-christians. i recall reading about the Catholic church persecuting protestant christians. they even killed and burned them for speaking in tongues. I didn't even know the pope apologized over it. Obviously they were acting out of selfishness and greed, and not according to the bible.

Mamaput,

the pope, bishops, pastors are not puppets. they are the leaders and like Peter, they are to take care of Jesus's sheep. They are not the owner of the flock, just appointed shepherds. Thus, they are not to bring in any law contrary to that of the owner, Jesus. They are human beings and should be given the respect due to leaders, but shouldn't be treated as gods. They are not infallible.

Yes, Peter was the first leader of the Church. Jesus handed the church over to him. Pastors should take a cue from Peter in their leadership roles.

Yes, Peter was married. The bible doesn't forbid pastors/leaders from marrying. It actually says that bishops/pastors should be husbands of one wife. Peter even warned against doctrines that would forbid marrying or eating meat on certain days. This is one reason why mainstream evangelical churches argue that the catholic chuch has many un-Christian doctrines.

These are just some cases of churches making laws contrary to the bible.