1. That Abraham travelled 1000 km to build the kaaba in Mecca with the son he cast out. 2 be continued.

^^^ and you find it acceptable that Ibrahim [as] left the far away iraq to jerualem, but cant make the 1K miles to Makka.
you find it acceptable that he even visited egypt.
you find it acceptable that jacob wrestled and defeated Yahweh and all of you people who believed jacob's superior wrestling skill to defeat the unbeatable. except that time.
you find it
you find it acceptable that Yahweh protected the wife of Abraham from the hands of pharaoh, but threw his son out.
you find it acceptable that jacob held the heel of his brother esau as they were being delivered.
you find it acceptable the the mother of jacob hated her own son esau.
you find it acceptable that Yahweh sent the holy spirit to overshadow and come with power upon mary so that jesus can be born.
you find it acceptable that Yahweh must have a son sired by not Him, but holy shost.
you find it acceptable that this Yahweh had this son so that the son can be delivered and Yahweh allow him to be hung to die.
you find it acceptable that Yahweh sacrificed His only begotten son to Himself or to someone else or to nobody for you salvation.


Yet you will argue here that all of the above make sense, without battling an eye.
But you will not reflect that the Best Friend of God must love his first son who he circumcised and Yahweh Who named the child will not care for father and son relationship enough to wanna keep them together, but must tell the father to drop him and dont remember him like a bad habit.

Is that the last the best you will expect God Who is Most Merciful and Love Dearly all His creation forcing His Best Friend to abandon the son that made him a father, the son he could not get out of his heart till death took him? Is it impossible for Ibrahim to arrive in Makka if Jesus can be lifted body and soul, alive from earth to heaven, Elijah carried away to heaven in whirlwind or chariot of fire, Adam being created from dust and Eve from a piece of his rib? The son who buried him? You are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what Allah The Almighty did: He did not have a son or asked anything to take advantage of a young woman who is not his wife that he must overshadow and come upon her to produce a baby. Allah will not be unjust to anyone and particularly His Best Friend affecting his heart, especially disconnecting him from his son or killing innocent person so that a whole lotta guilty and ungrateful people will be alive. A thousand mile is a stone throw considering that Allah made Jibril [as] arrive on earth to deliver revelations to prophets [as].

Jesus ordered his disciples to buy Sword. It was time for war!

[quote author=Sweetnecta]^^^
you find it acceptable that jacob wrestled and defeated Yahweh and all of you people who believed jacob's superior wrestling skill to defeat the unbeatable. except that time.
Stop misquoting and misinterpreting the bible, Jacob did'nt defeat Yaweh, rather, he did'nt let go until morning.

"that God did face off for judas" and did fly away for Jesus.... part 2 coming soon

Part two,
"Jesus will be back to marry and die"

emmysenior: Stop misquoting and misinterpreting the bible,
Jacob did'nt defeat Yaweh, rather, he did'nt let
go until morning.

Actually, I have read it in a copy of one version of Children's Bible. It was after the Wrestlemania that "God changed Jacob's name to Israel" according to that Bible. (Astagfirullah).

The story even had the picture of two men grappling each other. One was suppose to represent God! (Incredulous!) whilst the other was Jacob.

Truly ridiculous stuff! Greek Mythology makes more sense than that.

manmacho: "that God did face off for judas" and did fly away for Jesus.... part 2 coming soon

According to three out of the four versions of the Gospel present in the Christian Bible, it is said that whilst Jesus was on the way to be crucified, the soldiers escorting him stopped a certain Jewish man who happened to be passing by named Simon of Cyrene, and made him carry the cross for Jesus.

Now, read carefully the account given in the Gospel of Matthew [Matthew 27:31-37] and note that the text actually implies the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus (all Biblical quotes in this article are from the King James translation):

31: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
32: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
33: And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
34: They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
36: And sitting down they watched him there;
37: And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Notice that in verse 32, Simon of Cyrene is referred to, and that in all of the verses following it up to verse 37, Jesus' name is not mentioned, there is only "him" and "he". Thus implying that the word "him" in verse 35 refers to Simon of Cyrene, and not to Jesus.

The fact that they wrote a sign above his head claiming him to be Jesus only indicates that this was what they thought.

And see Mark's similar account [Mark 15:20-26]:

20: And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
21: And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
22: And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
23: And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24: And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26: And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

These two accounts clearly imply the likelihood that Simon of Cyrene was the one crucified instead of Jesus. However, due to the belief that later came to prevail among the Christians regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, along with the confusion that they must have had in reconciling all of the contradictory accounts, it is likely that much of the other content of those gospels regarding events afterwards was doctored and distorted.

The accounts of Luke and John [Luke 23:26-43, John 19:17-27] are fairly unambiguous that Jesus was crucified, however these two accounts are considered to have been authored at a later period than those of Mark and Matthew.

The author of Luke, as is evident from certain other writings in the New Testament, was clearly an adherent of the teachings of Paul, while the identity of the author of John is controversial, although it is certain from the content of his Gospel that he held many of the complicated beliefs of the Greek philosophers and thinkers, rather than the simple Semitic monotheism that Jesus so clearly taught.

Then I found this interesting piece of information on Wikipedia:

"According to some Gnostic traditions, [b]Simon of Cyrene, by mistaken identity, suffered the events leading up to the crucifixion, and died on the cross instead of Jesus. [/b]This is the story presented in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, although it is unclear whether Simon or another actually died on the cross, This belief is also held by many Muslims, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Cyrene

The following is the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons of the relevant portion of the work known as "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" mentioned above, which is one of a collection of early Christian gnostic writings dated around the 3rd or 4th century CE that was discovered near the Egyptian town of Nag' Hammadi in 1945. The quote is attributed to Jesus:

"For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death, It was another, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I[t] was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns, And I was laughing at their ignorance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_, the_Great_Seth

And here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in its online article on Docetism (an early Christian sect regarded as "heretical" by the later Church):

"According to Basilides, Christ seemed to men to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ, who suffered but Simon of Cyrene who was constrained to carry the cross and was mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus returned Simon's and thus stood by and laughed. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his father (Irenaeus, Adv. Char., 1, xxiv). According to some apocrypha it was Judas, not Simon the Cyrenean, who was thus substituted."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Obviously, many of the other beliefs of the Docetists and other Gnostic sects are clear-cut kufr and deviance, however what is relevant here is the admission by the Christians themselves that there was indeed a controversy from the very earliest periods of Christianity regarding who exactly was killed on the cross.

And indeed, Allah revealed the truth of the matter in his Saying: {And because of their saying: "We killed the Messiah, 'Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah." But they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge; they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely, they killed him not.} [An-Nisa': 157]

And Allah knows better.

courtesy:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/but-they-killed-him-not-nor-did-16671/

A Hissing God

Isaiah 5:26
And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Isaiah 7:18
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.

Zechariah 10:8
I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

A "roaring" God
[img]http://1.bp..com/_N_mOB63qPaE/TNmH_X-EL-I/AAAAAAAAQpA/i7TIHMFKvNk/s1600/Roaring-African-Lion.jpg[/img]
Isaiah 42:13
The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Jeremiah 25:30
Therefore prophesy thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth.


A "barber" God"



Isaiah 7:20
In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.

A"penitent" God

Jeremiah 15:6
Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


A God "riding" a cherub

2 SAMUEL 22:11
And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.

A "smoking" God

2 SAMUEL 22:9
There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

A God murders 50,070 for looking into a box

1 Samuel 6:19
And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Please Mac unhide my above post and unban me.spam-bot hid it.thanks.

^ Ban expires by 7.50 pm

^
Thanks.

Lol na wa oh! I wish the OP would see the result of his hand work.

LagosShia:

According to three out of the four versions of the Gospel present in the Christian Bible, it is said that whilst Jesus was on the way to be crucified, the soldiers escorting him stopped a certain Jewish man who happened to be passing by named Simon of Cyrene, and made him carry the cross for Jesus.

Now, read carefully the account given in the Gospel of Matthew [Matthew 27:31-37] and note that the text actually implies the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus (all Biblical quotes in this article are from the King James translation):

31: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
32: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
33: And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
34: They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
36: And sitting down they watched him there;
37: And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Notice that in verse 32, Simon of Cyrene is referred to, and that in all of the verses following it up to verse 37, Jesus' name is not mentioned, there is only "him" and "he". Thus implying that the word "him" in verse 35 refers to Simon of Cyrene, and not to Jesus.

The fact that they wrote a sign above his head claiming him to be Jesus only indicates that this was what they thought.

And see Mark's similar account [Mark 15:20-26]:

20: And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
21: And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
22: And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
23: And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24: And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26: And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

These two accounts clearly imply the likelihood that Simon of Cyrene was the one crucified instead of Jesus. However, due to the belief that later came to prevail among the Christians regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, along with the confusion that they must have had in reconciling all of the contradictory accounts, it is likely that much of the other content of those gospels regarding events afterwards was doctored and distorted.

The accounts of Luke and John [Luke 23:26-43, John 19:17-27] are fairly unambiguous that Jesus was crucified, however these two accounts are considered to have been authored at a later period than those of Mark and Matthew.

The author of Luke, as is evident from certain other writings in the New Testament, was clearly an adherent of the teachings of Paul, while the identity of the author of John is controversial, although it is certain from the content of his Gospel that he held many of the complicated beliefs of the Greek philosophers and thinkers, rather than the simple Semitic monotheism that Jesus so clearly taught.

Then I found this interesting piece of information on Wikipedia:

"According to some Gnostic traditions, [b]Simon of Cyrene, by mistaken identity, suffered the events leading up to the crucifixion, and died on the cross instead of Jesus. [/b]This is the story presented in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, although it is unclear whether Simon or another actually died on the cross, This belief is also held by many Muslims, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Cyrene

The following is the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons of the relevant portion of the work known as "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" mentioned above, which is one of a collection of early Christian gnostic writings dated around the 3rd or 4th century CE that was discovered near the Egyptian town of Nag' Hammadi in 1945. The quote is attributed to Jesus:

"For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death, It was another, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I[t] was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns, And I was laughing at their ignorance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_, the_Great_Seth

And here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in its online article on Docetism (an early Christian sect regarded as "heretical" by the later Church):

"According to Basilides, Christ seemed to men to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ, who suffered but Simon of Cyrene who was constrained to carry the cross and was mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus returned Simon's and thus stood by and laughed. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his father (Irenaeus, Adv. Char., 1, xxiv). According to some apocrypha it was Judas, not Simon the Cyrenean, who was thus substituted."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

Obviously, many of the other beliefs of the Docetists and other Gnostic sects are clear-cut kufr and deviance, however what is relevant here is the admission by the Christians themselves that there was indeed a controversy from the very earliest periods of Christianity regarding who exactly was killed on the cross.

And indeed, Allah revealed the truth of the matter in his Saying: {And because of their saying: "We killed the Messiah, 'Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah." But they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge; they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely, they killed him not.} [An-Nisa': 157]

And Allah knows better.

courtesy:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/but-they-killed-him-not-nor-did-16671/

this is sooooooo funny, you must have a nice sense of humour. keep it up will give you the comedy of the year award.

all the assumption added shows me u do not research, you do not argue with open mind.

common read, the whole account and be lead into the truth

you no that these faceoff account about Jesus in the quaran is not true

manmacho:

this is sooooooo funny, you must have a nice sense of humour. keep it up will give you the comedy of the year award.

all the assumption added shows me u do not research, you do not argue with open mind.

common read, the whole account and be lead into the truth

you no that these faceoff account about Jesus in the quaran is not true

quote author=manmacho]

this is sooooooo funny, you must have a nice sense of humour. keep it up will give you the comedy of the year award.

all the assumption added shows me u do not research, you do not argue with open mind.

common read, the whole account and be lead into the truth

you no that these faceoff account about Jesus in the quaran is not true[/quote]

ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE,Mohamed is the only righteous and holy prophet[/b]

manmacho:

this is sooooooo funny, you must have a nice sense of humour. keep it up will give you the comedy of the year award.

all the assumption added shows me u do not research, you do not argue with open mind.

common read, the whole account and be lead into the truth

you no that these faceoff account about Jesus in the quaran is not true

[b]ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE,Mohamed is the only righteous and holy prophet[b]

This Christian dey fall my hand, lagosshia dust unah, instead make unah gp mlbilize all your horde of fanaticist and resist this sucker punch unah dey here dey laugh.

Na wa oh!!!

We laugh at his(lagoshias) ignorant. We don't need to get worked up like some people will over a mere cartoon

It is very funny u could only see the cartoons and not the point he was making, which is the bible is filled with tales of oddities that are in fact quite laughable than the OP . . . I bet u must have laugh when seeing the claim of God riding cherubs coz I did!

manmacho:

this is sooooooo funny, you must have a nice sense of humour. keep it up will give you the comedy of the year award.

all the assumption added shows me u do not research, you do not argue with open mind.

common read, the whole account and be lead into the truth

you no that these faceoff account about Jesus in the quaran is not true

"Likehood" in the gospels that Jesus (as) wasn't the one crucified.but certainly in other early writings rejected by the early roman catholic church fathers,they clearly state clear-cut Jesus (as) wasn't the one crucified.

Bottomline is the claim muslims make isn't funny or laughable as you're trying to suggest and offer a fake laughter to promote your satanic version of christianity you practice today.early christians did believe it wasn't Jesus (as) but someone else who got crucified.so really how do we know it isn't you that is laughable and not them? Oh yeah,God "killed" his "beloved son" so that evil sinners would be forgiven by him.and you still don't know who to laugh at? You must really have no sense of humor.

Mee234: We laugh at his(lagoshias) ignorant. We don't need to get worked up like some people will over a mere cartoon

Go and learn english first before talking "ignorant".

Go and learn english first before talking "ignorant"
thank you my dear for noticing, I am already learning.

Mee234:

Go and learn english first before talking "ignorant"
thank you my dear for noticing, I am already learning.

You're welcome dear!

LagosShia:

You're welcome dear!

[color=#006600][quote author=LagosShia]

It still does not change the fact that you are ignorant of the bible. You may know the ''Latters'' but u do not understand them.

Typical ignoramus christian fellow, i bet the OP never knew the complicated absurdity in his beliefs, trying to look for crocodiles in a desert lol.

Mind you, there is nothing that can be classified as laughable about the doctrine of Islam, if you dont understand, as the right questions...there are enough muslims here to disabuse your mind.

Mee234:
It still does not change the fact that you are ignorant of the bible. You may know the ''Latters'' but u do not understand them.

Ok