Rilwayne001:


So what was it??

A.boki

AllNaijaBlogger:


A.boki

You've been corrected, stop being a stiffnecked reprobate

Rilwayne001:


You've been corrected, stop being a stiffnecked reprobabate

Thanks

AllNaijaBlogger:

Please, back up your arguments that
+Paul created christianity and
+ Paul's teachings are more relevant than Jesus's
Please, summarize what Paul's teachings are about since you are claiming that he created christianity.
you lied that Paul created christianity.

There is no easy was to summarize this mess creasted by Mr. Paul.

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul and his followers define what became Christianity.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Influenced by Greek Hellenism and various mystery cults he turned the man Jesus into spiritual deity.Paul (formally Saul) was a hired hit man and enforcer for the Roman appointed-controlled High Priest the traitorous Caiaphas. He was hostile to Judaism and there's no real proof he had any knowledge of it outside the Greek Septuagint.

According to Paul, Jesus' Jewish teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith. Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored. Roman Catholicism chose Paul over Jesus.

"Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time."

The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, an alleged Pharisee? who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.

His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.

Theology of Paul from a Christian Deist

What you usually hear about Jesus today in churches and on TV is an interpretation that comes from the writings of a man named Paul who called himself an "apostle" (messenger) but was not among Jesus' "twelve" disciples who are also called "apostles."

Paul's ideas about Jesus are found in letters which he wrote to churches and which were later included in the book called the "New Testament."

Paul, whose Jewish name was Saul, lived during and after the time of Jesus but Paul never claimed to have seen or heard Jesus except in some kind of mystical "vision" after the time of Jesus. From his "vision" of Jesus, Paul became convinced that Jesus was the Jewish "messiah" ("christos" in Greek) whom Paul believed would become the ruler ("lord" of all humanity, not just the "kingdom of Israel."

Paul referred to Jesus by the title of "christos." The word English word "Christ" in the New Testament is a transliteration of the Greek word "christos" (meaning "anointed one" which, in turn, is a translation of the Hebrew word "mashiach" (messiah) which also means "anointed one." The title "mashiach" (anointed one) refers to someone who is chosen for a special purpose, such as a king.

Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the term "christos" is used as a title for Jesus. Jesus (the) Christ simply means Jesus "the anointed one." Eventually the followers of Jesus became known as "Christians."

What did Paul believe about Jesus, and how did Paul's ideas become dominant in Christian churches?

Although Paul considered Jesus to be God's Son, "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6)
Paul believed that Jesus was subordinate to God "the Father." Paul wrote,(I Corinthians 8:6).

Paul began preaching that Jesus was the "messiah" (Christos) whom the Jews were expecting but he immediately ran into a problem. The Jews were not expecting their messiah to be crucified. According to the book of Acts, Paul "came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the (Hebrew) scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ" (Acts 17:1-3).

Paul called his message the "gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:19). Paul summarized his "gospel" in his letter to the Christians at Corinth, "Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

Paul's "gospel" can be summarized as follows:

(1) "Christ died for our sins" -- The penalty for sin is death but Jesus is God's divine and sinless Son who died on the cross to pay the death penalty on behalf of humankind.

(2) "He (Jesus) was raised on the third day" -- God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day and gave him authority as "lord" (ruler) over all humankind, and whoever "confesses that Jesus is lord" and "believes that God raised him from the dead" will be saved from sin and death.

Does all of this sound familiar to you? It should because Paul's theology became dominant in the Christian movement. Paul preached for about 30 years after the time of Jesus. He spread his views through his missionary journeys in many countries and he wrote letters to the young churches that he established or visited. His letters were kept and circulated among the early Christians.

There Are Many Jesuses In The Bible That Christians Dont Even Know About

Is There More Than One Jesus In The Bible? This was actually written by a christian

i let me say up front, that this hub is not written to upset, anger, or step on anyone's cherished beliefs, who may take these stories as literally true. I'm just pointing out something that may be beneficial to their understanding of these stories, if they're open to it. And if they're not open to it...that's fine too.

I don't take these stories as literally true

Now that, that's out of the way, let's get started.

It may seem like an odd question to ask “is there more than one Jesus in the bible?” Especially since we’ve been taught that Jesus is unique and that his name is the only name we can be saved by. So let’s take a little walk through the biblical woods and see if we can separate the woods from the trees.

The Origin Of The Name Jesus

First, let’s take a look at the derivation of Jesus’ name. The English name, Jesus, is a translation or transliteration of the Latin name Iesus. Iesus is a translation of the Greek name, Iesous (pronounced I ee sus). Iesous is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua, or in English Joshua

You can find this information on your own; just do an internet search on the origin of the name Jesus.

With this short lesson, I think it’s easy to see that Jesus’ name in English should be Joshua, I think that even a “blind man” could see that.

Now here’s the interesting question. Jesus’ real name is Yehoshua, so how can we only be saved by the name Jesus, since that’s not Jesus’ real name? Shouldn't the only name we can be saved by be, Yehoshua, his real name?

If we wanted to substitute a name for Jesus’ real name, wouldn't Joshua be the logical choice and make more sense, since that his name in English? Joshua would be closer to Jesus’ real name but that’s still not his real name.

So why did Christian scholars translate Yehoshua’s name as Jesus, rather than, Joshua as they did the name of Yehoshua the son of Nun, in the Old Testament, when they translated the Bible into English in the seventeenth century AD? ( Joshua is the original Jesus in the bible).

We’ll take a look at that question in a second, but first, let’s take a look at how many people named Jesus are in the bible, other than Jesus.

People named Jesus in the Bible

1) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ.

2) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Hebrew. 4:.

3) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luke. 3:29).

4) Jesus surnamed, Justus, a Jewish Christian, associated with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Colossians. 4:11.) (Strong’s Bible Lexicon)

5.Jesus "the Son of Sirach" ) the author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the 3rd century BCE.(Dictionary.com)

Have you ever heard of these people? I hadn’t until I did this research the results of which I’m sharing with you now.

Jesus Barabbas

We’ve all heard the story of how following Jesus’ arrest, the people were asked choose which one of two prisoners they would like to set free, Jesus or Barabbas, and that they chose to set Barabbas free.But what you probably didn’t is that, Barabbas’s first name was….Jesus! Isn’t that amazing! You have to prisoners with same name! But it’s even more amazing then that.

This is the meaning Barabbas: “Barabbas i.e., son of a father or the father, the notorious robber whom Pilate proposed to condemn to death instead of Jesus, whom he wished to release, in accordance with the Roman custom (John 18:40; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19). But the Jews were so bent on the death of Jesus that they demanded that Barabbas should be pardoned (Matthew. 27:16-26; Acts 3:14). This Pilate did” (Easton's Bible Dictionary).

So Bar means son and Abba means father Barabbas son of the father. Why did the author of Matthew leave out Barabbas' first name in this story? I think his first name was it left out on purpose.

Jesus was called the “son of the father” and Jesus Barabbas was called the “son of the father” So there were two "Jesus' “sons of the father" on trial that day! So which one was the "real" Jesus?

Obviously the translators of the story, only wanted us to focus on the Jesus, they wanted us to focus on. They didn’t want us to see that there were two “Jesus on trial in that day. So how can we sure which one was the real Jesus? That’s good question to ponder don’t you agree? For more on this issue (See "The Mystery of Barabbas" 1993 Dr. M.D. Magee

Joshua the son of Nun

Let move on and take a look at the original Jesus of bible, Joshua the Son of Nun. Many people may never have been aware of this because, when the Septuagint, the original Greek Old Testament, translated from Hebrew Bible around 3 BC, (300 years before Jesus) Joshua's name is transliterated as Ieous (Jesus).

Here’s what Strong's Bible Lexicon says about Joshua the son of Nun "Joshua = Jehovah is his help, or Jehovah the Savior or God in the flesh. The son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, the successor of Moses as the leader of Israel. He is called Jehoshua in Numbers. 13:16 (A.V.) and Jesus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews. 4:8 (R.V. Joshua)". "The meaning of Nun = "fish" or "posterity" father of Joshua the successor of Moses".

Isn’t it interesting that the fish was also the symbol of Jesus and the early Christians. So was Joshua the original Hebrew Messiah? I say yes. For a more thorough look at this subject See (“The Cult of Joshua, Christianity Revealed" by Dr. M D Magee

The Septuagint

Way before the New Testament was written; the early Jewish Christians’ bible was “The Septuagint, the Hebrew bible (the Old testament translated into Greek). In this Greek Bible, as was pointed out earlier, Yehoshua, Joshua’s Hebrew name, was transliterated as Iesous. This was the first time, the name that would eventually became, Jesus, became known to the early Greek speaking Christians. When they read the name, Iesous (Jesus), they knew that name was referring to, Joshua the son of Nun not Jesus of Nazareth.

Ahmed Osman in his book, “Out of Egypt the roots of Christianity revealed” states “ The name Jesus appeared for the first time in the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Alexndria during the 3rd century BC. ‘Jesus’ then indicated the son of Nun, who succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites. Jesus is also the name given to Joshua the son of Nun in the works of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, both Jewish authors of the 1st century AD.

When the Christian Gospels, which were also written in Greek, spoke of Jesus, it was clear to the reader then that this was the same person as the Israelite leader who succeeded Moses. The confusion only appeared from the 16th century onwards, when the Bible was translated into English. Only then the name ‘Joshua’ was given to the Old Testament character, while ‘Jesus’ was used for his New Testament appearance”. (Out of Egypt, the roots of Christianity revealed, Ahmed Osman, 1998 Random House.)

So I think that pretty much shows us that Joshua the son of nun was the first Jesus in bible.

Keeping with the theme of who was the first or original biblical person, who was the first son of god? Most of us probably think that’s a no brainer. It’s obviously Jesus.


Adam the son of God

But look at what the gospel of Luke says about who the first Son of God was, while giving Jesus’ supposed genealogy: Luke 3:38 "…Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God". So Adam was the original Son of God, very interesting.

But, in the Old Testament, Adam is depicted as anything but a Son of God. Adam is depicted as a creation of God. But in Luke, Adam is depicted as the original Son of God, thousands of years before Jesus was born! But how can that be, when we read, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”. Genesis 2:7. So obviously the writer of Luke wanted to make Jesus divine by making him a descendant of Adam the original son of god, even though Genesis states, Adam is a creation of god not a son of god.

There were many sons of god during that time, which is why the early Roman Christians clergy, made Jesus the only begotten Son of God, to make him distinct from and more legitimate than other religions sons of god. But all sons are begotten by their fathers (Begotten is from Beget. “Beget meaning to procreate as the father: Sire: To produce as an effect or outgrowth” (Webster’ Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

Sons of God and Angels

Although Adam wasn’t God’s son, genesis does mention that god had sons. "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" .Genesis 6:4

So I think this is proof positive that, contrary to what Christians have been taught to believe…that god had other sons besides Jesus. And the Old Testament doesn’t mention Jesus, as a son of god and he definitely, not the only son of god.

Some Christians think that when genesis refers to sons of god that the sons are really angels. Here’s what angel means. “Angel from the Greek, Angelos, and literally means messenger (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) as in "messenger of God", not "son of God" as some of us may have been conditioned or brainwashed, I mean taught to believe.

King David

Jesus is said to be the son of god and the messiah because he’s a descendant of King David, because the messiah will be a descendent of King David. John 7:41 “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?”

So Matthew was written to show that Jesus is a descendant of King David. Matthew 1:1 “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”

But in Luke, Jesus implies he’s not descendant of King David, Luke 20:41 “And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son? 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?”

I think that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin. Jesus is not a descendant of King David and therefore can’t be the messiah.


John the Baptist

Here’s another contradiction that show that Jesus is not the messiah. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and witnesses miraculous phenomena that show him that Jesus is the son of God. John 1:32 “And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it stayed on him. 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, On whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost. 1:34 And I saw, and bore record that this is the Son of God”.

But, later after he had been imprisoned, and heard about the miraculous things Jesus was doing. John sends his disciples to ask Jesus, is he the one to come or do they look for another: Matthew 11:2 “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 11:3 And said to him, Are you he that should come, or do we look for another?”

John baptizes Jesus, recognizes him as the Messiah, but now has to send his disciples, to ask if Jesus is the one to come, or do should they look for another? Something’s fishy in Boston, and it ain’t the fish. I’ll leave that one for you to ponder.


Jesus can’t do great works in his hometown

Another point,

Jesus can’t do great works in his hometown

If Jesus is the messiah and God in the flesh, why did people’s belief, have anything to do with his ability, to heal them or to do great works?

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 6:4 But Jesus, said to them, a prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.” If he’s God why couldn’t he do any great works in his supposed home town?


His name shall be Emmanuel

The writer of Matthew tries to show that Jesus is the son of God or the Messiah by quoting a prophecy of the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament:

Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took to him his wife: 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”.

Now many of us may have read this story or heard about it, and think that this proves, that Jesus is the son of God or the Messiah. Bu, Isaiah’s prophecy says the child’s name shall be “Emmanuel” “God with us”. But Joseph named his child “Jesus”. If Isaiah’s prophecy was about Joseph’s child, it didn’t come true because, Joseph named his child “Jesus” not “Emmanuel”. The angel of the Lord telling Joseph in a dream to name his son Jesus, contradicts what was said in Isaiah’s prophecy. So how can Isaiah’s prophecy be referring to Jesus?


The Original Messiah

The original Messiah was Joshua the son of Nun, the successor of Moses, who actually led the children of Israel into the Promised Land of Canaan. This makes Moses the forerunner of the Messiah. The fathers of early Roman Christian Orthodox Church adopted this pattern and applied to John the Baptist and Jesus, to legitimize their new religious cult, associating it with a more established religious tradition with a long textual history.

After that somewhat circuitous journey through our subject. Let's end by answer our starting question

Is There One Jesus In The Bible or More Than One?

Yes there is more than one Jesus in the Bible. Here's a reminder of who some of them are

1) Jesus Barabbas the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ.

2) Joshua the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:.

3) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luke 3:29).

4) Jesus surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associated with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Colossians 4:11). (Strong's Bible Lexicon)

5.Jesus "the Son of Sirach" ) the author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the 3rd century BCE.(Dictionary.com)

Should we turn a “deaf” ear and a “blind” eye to obvious contradictions in our religious beliefs, without doing some sustained research, into the history of what we’ve been taught to believe, without question, about our religious beliefs?

No we shouldn't.

May the Light never cease to lighten your Minds!

Never read about those Jesuses before oo.

Rilwayne001:


Never read about those Jesuses before oo.

It's funny how christian clerics, Bishops, popes and other hide this from their people. I first learned this from "ACADIP" in 2013 and decided to research on it. Ever wonder they never mentioned Barabar's first name (Jesus). I believe Barabar is the same Barnabas of a Gospel.

Question christians need to answer is whch Jesus is their saviour from the list?.

The article writtern by the christian makes it easy for me. I was preparing to put together a thread on it. I guess this is sufficient. So definitely there are more than one Jesus in the Bible.

Empiree:
It's funny how christian clerics, Bishops, popes and other hide this from their people. I first learned this from "ACADIP" in 2013 and decided to research on it. Ever wonder they never mentioned Barabar's first name (Jesus). I believe Barabar is the same Barnabas of a Gospel.

Question christians need to answer is whch Jesus is their saviour from the list?.

The article writtern by the christian makes it easy for me. I was preparing to put together a thread on it. I guess this is sufficient. So definitely there are more than one Jesus in the Bible.

There may have been a thousand people who went by the name ‘JESUS’ (i.e. its Hebrew or Greek equivalent) in the Bible. Even today some bear the name ‘Jesus’ in some parts of the world.

So I don’t think that is really the issue – in his humanity Christ had to bear a name.

The historical ‘Jesus’ that Christians believe in as the saviour is the ONE PERSON:
1. Whose birth was unique and supernatural. He was uniquely born.
2. Who performed supernatural miracles and therefore had a unique and supernatural life.
3. Who died on a Roman cross. [So if 2 people on the cross had the same name ‘Jesus’ it was the one of them who fitted into (1) & (2) above that Christians believe in]. This his death on the cross was for the forgiveness of our sins.
4. Who rose from the grave, conquered death and ascended into heaven. So, the end of his life was unique and supernatural. So there is NO GRAVE where you can worship his dead bones today.

There was a single person that fit into ALL of the above, not just one of them or few of them. That is the ‘Jesus’ Christians believe on as their saviour.

Even the Quran ATTESTS to all these even though many Muslims refuse to BELIEVE in what their Quran point them to.

It is the ONLY person who ever lived and had ALL those uniqueness that Christians believe in – Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

The Gospel is the Message brought by Jesus Christ, with many found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

http://frolickyfingers..de/2011/11/transcript-who-killed-muhammad-by-david.html?m=1

David: Hello? I'd like to report a murder.
(listens)
David: His name? Muhammad.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah.
(listens)
David: I think he was poisoned.
(listens)
David: No, he's the prophet of Islam.
(listens)
David: Well, it was almost 14 centuries
ago, but don't you, guys, have a cold
case file or something?
(listens)
David: Not for that long ago! Don't you
know how important this case is?! I've got
Sunnis telling me a Jewish woman
poisoned him. I've got Shias telling me
Aisha poisoned him, and I wanna know
who killed.. Hello? (snorts) She hung up.
I guess I'll have to solve this one myself
—through a careful investigation of the
Muslim sources.
By the way, to all my Muslim friends out
there who didn't bother to read your
most trusted sources, may I say in
advance: Mua ha ha.
Okay, I've been through the Qur'an, the
hadith, and the sira literature, and I
think I've solved the mystery of
Muhammad's death. It's actually pretty
straightforward. The Muslim sources tell
us that Muhammad was poisoned. All we
have to do is take everything we know
about how Muhammad was killed, and
ask ourselves who would've killed him in
that particular way. Police do this sort of
thing everyday. They match up a bullet
with the gun that fired the bullet. They
match up fingerprints with the finger [of
the person] who left the fingerprints.
They match up details of a crime with
the criminal who has a certain M.O. So to
figure out who killed Muhammad, we
just need to do a little profiling.
(Video clip:
Accused: But the fact remains you can't
prove that I did it. It could've been
anybody!
Colombo: It can only be you—by your
own admission!)
The main difficulty we face is that lots of
people wanted to kill Muhammad. The
pagans wanted to kill him for conquering
their cities, smashing their idols,
slaughtering their men , raping their
women, and enslaving their children.
Jews wanted to kill them for seizing their
land, destroying their communities,
slaughtering their men , raping their
women, and enslaving their children.
Christians wanted to kill him for
threatening to conquer them. Men
wanted to kill him. Women wanted to kill
him. Old people wanted to kill him.
Young people wanted to kill him.
Muhammad made a LOT of enemies.
(Video clip: "What's the matter Rodney?"
"Ohhh, I don't get any respect at all."
Fortunately, we can narrow down our list
of suspects by ruling out people who
would've killed Muhammad in some way
OTHER than poisoning. Certain killers
like to strangle their victims; they're not
going to use poison. Some people prefer
knives. Some people set fires. Some
people push their victims off cliffs.
Colonel Mustard wouldn't poison
anybody. He used a lead pipe in The
Ballroom.
Interestingly, the Qur'an tells us how
Allah would've killed Muhammad. We
find Allah's M.O., his preferred method
of executing prophets, in Surah 69:44
through 46. According to the Qur'an, if
Muhammad were to invent a false
revelation, if he were to make up verses
of the Qur'an, Allah would kill him by
severing his aorta. (The aorta is the large
artery that comes out of the left ventricle
of your heart. Some Muslim sources call
it the "life artery".)
Let's look at different translations of
verses 44 to 46 along with a
commentary, so we can get a clear idea
of what the passage is saying. The Hilali-
Khan translation reads:
Qur'an 69:44-46 And if he (Muhammad)
had forged a false saying concerning Us
We surely should have seized him by his
right hand (or with power and might),
and then certainly should have cut off
his life artery (aorta). [Hilali-Khan]
And in parenthesis, the translators add,
"aorta". The Pickthal translation declares:
Qur-an 69:44-46 And if he had invented
false sayings concerning Us, We
assuredly had taken him by the right
hand and then severed his life-artery.
[Pickthall]
Dawood's translation reads:
Qur-an 69:44-46 Had he invented lies
concerning Us, We would have seized
him by the right hand and severed his
heart's vein. [Dawood]
ibn Shakir renders these verses:
Qur-an 69:44-46 And if he had
fabricated against Us some of the
sayings, We would certainly have seized
him by the right hand, then We would
certainly have cut off his aorta. [Shakir]
Just so we're clear on the meaning, and
no one accuses me of misrepresenting
the passage, let me read one of the
greatest Muslim commentaries of these
verses. This is Tafsir Jalalayn:
Tafsir Jalalayn [on Qur-an 69:44-46]
And had he, namely, the Prophet,
fabricated any lies against Us, by
communicating from Us that which We
have not said, We would have assuredly
seized him, We would have exacted
vengeance [against him], as punishment,
by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and
power; then We would have assuredly
severed his life-artery, the aorta of the
heart, a vein that connects with it, and
which if severed results in that person's
death.
So if Muhammad had been a false
prophet and a liar and a deceiver, we
know how Allah would've killed him—
Allah would've cut his aorta. As long as
no one severs Muhammad's aorta then,
we can rule out Allah as a suspect.
(Video clip: "I didn't do it! Just because
the blood was in my hand, doesn't mean
I stabbed the man."
Now that we've got our strategy, let's
turn to our Muslim sources, so that we
can put together our profile. According to
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and
other text, Muhammad was poisoned by
a Jewish woman.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2617 A Jewess brought
a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the
Prophet who ate from it. She was
brought to the Prophet and was asked,
"Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." Anas
added, "I continued to see the effect of
the poison on the palate of the mouth of
Allah's Messenger."
People could see the effects of the
poison in Muhammad's mouth. The
poison apparently disfigured his palate,
making his mouth look strange.
Sahih Muslim 5430 A Jewess came to
Allah's Messenger with poisoned mutton
and he took of what had been brought to
him. (When the effects of this poison
were felt by him) he called for her and
asked her about that, whereupon she
said, "I had determined to kill you".
Thereupon he said, " Allah will never
give you the power to do it."
Muhammad tells this woman, "Allah will
never allow you to kill me!" I guess
Muhammad didn't know Allah very well,
because the poison ultimately did kill
him.
In case you're wondering why this
woman wanted to poison Muhammad.
She tells us in ibn Sa'd:
ibn Sa'd, p. 252 The Apostle of Allah sent
for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [that's the
woman who poisoned him] and said to
her, " What induced you to do what you
have done?" She replied, " You have
done to my people what you have done.
You have killed my father, my uncle, and
my husband, so I said to myself, 'If you
are a prophet, the foreleg will inform
you; and others have said it: '"If you are
a king, we will get rid of you."'
The woman poisoned Muhammad,
because he slaughtered her family. I
guess Louis Farrakhan got something
right.
(Video clip: "But as a man soweth, the
same shall he also reap. And that's why
Jesus told Peter, 'Shield your sword,
because those who live by the sword, will
die by it.'"
But there's a plot twist here, my friends.
You see, Zaynab didn't act alone. She
had a co-conspirator, someone working
behind the scenes pulling the strings.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4428 The Prophet in
his ailment in which he died, used to
say, "O Aishah! I still feel the pain
caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and
at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being
cut from that poison."
What's that Muhammad? Something
about your aorta being cut? That's funny.
I seem to recall someone telling us that if
he were going to kill you for being a false
prophet, he will do it by severing your
aorta.
But let's keep reading.
Sunan Abu Dawud 4498 - A Jewess
presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a
roasted sheep which she had poisoned.
The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the
people also ate. He then said, "Lift your
hands (from eating), for it has informed
me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b.
Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the
Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to
her), "What motivated you to do the work
you have done?" She said, "If you were a
prophet, it would not harm you; but if
you were a king, I would rid the people
of you." The Apostle of Allah then
ordered regarding her and she was
killed. He then said about the pain of
which he died, "I continued to feel pain
from the morsel which I had eaten at
Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut
off my aorta."
"This is the time when it has cut off my
aorta."
Didn't someone tell us in the Qur'an that
he would kill Muhammad by cutting his
aorta? Notice the passage says that
Muhammad's companion, Bishr, died
from eating the poison. Interestingly,
before Bishr died, he told Muhammad
that as soon as he put the lamb in his
mouth, he could taste the poison, but he
ate it anyway because he saw
Muhammad eating it. In ibn Sa'd we
read:
ibn Sa'd, pp. 252-253 The Apostle of
Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which
he put into his mouth. Bishr ibn al-Bara
took another bone and put it into his
mouth. When the Apostle of Allah ate
one morsel of it, Bishr ate his and other
people also ate from it. Then the Apostle
of Allah said, "Hold back your hands!
Because this foreleg has informed me
that it is poisoned." Thereupon Bishr
said, "By Him Who hath made you great!
I discovered it from the morsel I took.
Nothing prevented me from spitting it
out but the idea that I did not like to
make your food unrelishing. When you
had eaten what was in your mouth, I did
not like to save my life after yours, and I
also thought you would not have eaten it
if there was something wrong." Bishr did
not rise from his seat but his color
changed to that of taylsan (a green cloth)
.To be continue.....

Continue...
Bishr died because he trusted
Muhammad. Muhammad died, too. His
pain and sickness just lasted much
longer. In Sunan Abu Dawud,
Muhammad even described his pain to
Bishr's mother.
Sunan Abu Dawud 4449 Umm Bishr said
to the Prophet during the sickness of
which he died, "What do you think about
your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not
think about the illness of my son except
the poisoned sheep of which he had
eaten with you at Khaibar." The Prophet
said, "And I do not think about my
illness except that. This is the time when
it cut off my aorta."
There's that aorta again.
At-Tabari, p. 124 The Messenger of God
said during the illness from which he
died—the mother of Bishr b. al-Bara had
come in to visit him—"Umm Bishr, at this
very moment I feel my aorta being
severed because of the food I ate with
your son at Khaybar."
Okay, Muhammad, we get the point
about the severed aorta.
According to Aisha, Muhammad was in
total agony before his death.
Sunan ibn Majah 1622 Aishah said, "I
never saw anyone suffer more pain than
the Messenger of Allah"
In the end, Muhammad couldn't even
walk on his own. His followers had to
drag him around.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2588 Aisha said,
"When the Prophet became sick and his
condition became serious, he requested
his wives to allow him to be treated in
my house, and they allowed him. He
came out leaning on two men while his
feet were dragging on the ground."
Now, since the Qur'an says that if
Muhammad were a false prophet, Allah
would sever his aorta; and Muhammad
eventually admitted that he could feel
his aorta being severed. You might think
we have a pretty good reason to reject
Muhammad and his religion, but you're
wrong. If you look more closely, you'll
see that we have at least ten good
reasons to reject Muhammad here.
First, think about Muhammad's
argument in the Qur'an. "If I'm a false
prophet Allah will cut my aorta!" People
who make silly claims like this usually
aren't prophets. "I am a prophet! If I'm
not, may God strike me with
lightning....Ah, no lightning! This proves
I'm a prophet." When someone uses that
kind of reasoning, chances are, he's a
false prophet, but that's exactly how
Muhammad argues in Surah 69.
(Video clip: "So logically..." "If she weighs
the same as a duck, she's made of
wood!"
Second, even though these God-will-
strike-me-down claims are usually
enough to spot a false prophet, I believe
that God sometimes makes things even
more clear and obvious for us. If
someone's running around saying, "I'm a
prophet! God didn't strike me down,"
God might ignore him, but in some
cases, God might decide to thoroughly
disgrace and humiliate him. And if any
false prophet in history was a candidate
for divine judgment, it was Muhammad.
Now, Surah 69 was a Meccan surah,
meaning that Muhammad was reciting
this to his followers for years. He spent
years telling his companions, "If I'm a
false prophet, God's going to sever my
aorta!" My friends, there are thousands
of ways to die. Do you really think that
it's a coincidence that Muhammad died
in exactly the way the Qur'an said he
would die if he's a deceiver and a false
prophet? Looks like divine judgment to
me.
Third, I don't wanna call Muhammad
"stupid" because that wouldn't be
politically correct, but let's think about
this for a moment. Muhammad and his
followers attack Khaibar. After the
Muslims kill a bunch of men and rape a
bunch of women—standard practice for
Muslims back then—a Jewish woman
comes up to Muhammad. Muslims had
slaughtered her family, and she offers to
cook dinner for Muhammad and his
band of merry men. Muhammad accepts
her offer. "Sure, I love lamb. So nice of
you to cook dinner for us after we
butchered your father and your
husband." Look, if Muhammad doesn't
have enough common sense to realize
he probably shouldn't eat that lamb,
why should we trust anything the comes
out of his mouth? If a woman comes up
to you and says, "Hi, you slaughtered my
family! Care for a delicious meal?" And
the only response you can think of is
(Video clip: "Duh! Yeah, I think so.) Sorry.
You're not a real prophet.
Fourth, despite the fact that Muslims
had slaughtered her family, the Jewish
woman, Zaynab, was actually open to
the possibility that Muhammad was a
prophet. She gave him the poison as a
test. If you were a true prophet, you
wouldn't eat it. If you were a false
prophet, you'd die. Since Muhammad
died from the poisoning, he failed
Zaynab's test.
Fifth, Muhammad's companion, Bishr,
who'd tasted the poison as soon as he
put the lamb in his mouth. Why did he
keep eating? He kept eating, because he
believed in Muhammad. "There's no way
this lamb is poisoned. Muhammad is
eating it. He's the prophet!"
Bishr's faith in Muhammad got him
killed; and I'm willing to lay this down as
a rule: If I can't trust you with my dinner,
I definitely can't trust you with my
salvation. If you can't figure out what's
waiting for you in food, how could you
possibly know what's waiting for you in
the afterlife?
(Video clip: "Ignorance is bliss."
Sixth, when Zaynab told Muhammad
that she had poisoned him, Muhammad
said that Allah would never allow it! But
Allah did allow it. So if Muhammad was
wrong about Allah then, please explain
to me why I should trust him when he
tells me other things about Allah.
Seventh, Muhammad claimed that the
lamb he was eating spoke to him and
told him that it was poisoned. So he got a
special revelation, because he was a
prophet. Two questions: (1) Why didn't
the roasted lamb say something five
minutes earlier, which would've saved
Muhammad's life (not to mention Bishr's
life) and (2) Why did Muhammad need a
revelation when you could taste the
poison? Isn't this proof that Muhammad
was actually making up revelations? Isn't
it obvious that he tasted the poison,
same as Bishr, but instead of saying,
"Hey, I taste poison." He said, "It's
speaking to me! I'm a prophet!" Sounds
like a fake to me.
Eighth, think about the justice here. The
justice is just a little too poetic. This can't
be a coincidence. Muhammad did more
than anyone else in history to provoke
hatred against Jews. Muhammad did
more than anyone else in history to
oppress women. Muhammad told his
followers that women are stupid. And
then, Muhammad died a miserable,
humiliating, wretched death after being
outwitted by a JEWISH WOMAN.
So God didn't merely disgrace
Muhammad by severing his aorta,
thereby identifying him as a false
prophet. God added to Muhammad's
degradation by severing his aorta
through the hands of a Jewish woman
seeking vengeance against the man who
had brought her community nothing but
death and rape.
(Video clip: "Fair is fair! We didn't start
this. We didn't mean it to happen, but
we're not giving up 'til you pay. Fair is
fair!"
Ninth, according to the Qur'an, when the
Jews tried to kill Jesus, Allah intervened
and rescued Him. This is Surah 4:157-58.
Allah took Jesus safely to Paradise. He
wouldn't give anyone the victory over
Jesus. But when a group of Jews wanted
to kill Muhammad, what happened?
Allah sits back and watches as a woman
poisons his prophet, and he does
nothing as his prophet dies a humiliating
death. Why does Allah protect Jesus
from harm—zips Him straight to
Paradise—then when he turns around
and sees Muhammad wallowing in
freakish misery, Allah doesn't lift a finger
to help him. Sounds like Allah was
showing a little favoritism. Don't mess
with Jesus! Allah won't let you, but go
ahead and feed Muhammad some rat
poison and Allah doesn't care.
Finally, Muhammad's greatest wish was
to die in battle.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2797 The Prophet said,
..."By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I
would love to be martyred in Allah's
Cause and then come back to life and
then get martyred, and then come back
to life again and then get martyred and
then come back to life again and then
get martyred."
If you read the Muslim sources, you
know that every time Muhammad wants
something, Allah gives him a special
revelation granting him what he desires.
Muhammad wants to have sex with
Aisha, Allah gives him a revelation.
Muhammad wants more than four wives,
Allah gives him a revelation. Muhammad
wants to marry the divorced wife of his
own adopted son, Allah gives him a
revelation. Allah's got nothing to do but
sit around all day making Muhammad's
dreams come true.
(Video clip: "Well, I read about genies
but I never thought they really... It's like
something out of the Arabian nights."
Muhammad's ultimate wish was to die in
battle. It was his greatest desire. But
instead of letting Muhammad die while
fighting the Jews, Allah let's him die a
disgraceful death, in utter agony at the
hands of a Jewish woman. Death by leg
of lamb.
After spending more than two decades
granting Muhammad anything he
wanted, Allah suddenly decides not to
give Muhammad what he wanted most.
It seems Allah had a change of heart.
Putting all this together, we found at
least ten reasons to reject Islam just by
examining Muhammad's death. If we
look at how he lived, of course, we have
another trillion or so reasons to conclude
that he's a false prophet. What I find
most interesting, though, is that Muslims
will be upset with me for making this
video. They'll complain about the movie
clips I used. They'll complain about the
things I've said. "David, how dare you
put up a Weekend at Bernie's clip to
illustrate what we read in Bukhari."
But let me be perfectly clear, nothing I've
said about Muhammad comes anywhere
near what God said about Muhammad.
I'll go a step further, If you take
everything that people have ever said or
done to insult Muhammad—Salman
Rushdie's Satanic Verses, the Danish
cartoons, people burning the Qur'an—if
you take everything critical of
Muhammad and roll it up into one big
ball, that's nothing compared to the way
that God insulted and condemned
Muhammad. There's no comparison
between some guy drawing a picture of
Muhammad and God severing his aorta
to humiliate him. God is the ultimate
critic of Muhammad.
So, what are you going to do, my Muslim
friends? Are you going to run around
calling God an Islamophobic bigot
because He insulted Muhammad? Or are
you going to accept correction from the
Almighty?
Islam means "submission". Muslims
think it refers to submission to God—but
God has already given His answer. He
commands you to reject Muhammad. If
you continue believing in Muhammad,
what you're really saying is, "God can't
make me stop believing in Muhammad. I
don't care what God says. I believe in
Muhammad anyway."
But in that case, Islam isn't submission
to God. It's submission to Muhammad. If
you care more about Muhammad than
you care about God, you, guys, are living
in Shirk Central.
David: That's right. I SOLVED the cold
case, so put that in your file.
(listens)
David: No, I just wanna hear you to say
it: "Colombo, ain't got nothin' on me!"

^^^

Whats all these trash

@ Empiree,

I see that you are using dubious techniques to argue. I asked you to summarize why or how Paul created Christianity and yet again, you copy and paste long-winded nonsense from anti-christian sites and then your "supporting muslim" brother cheers you on.


You then throw all manners of irrelevant statements to confuse and deceive. If there were many people referred to as "Jesus" does that change the fact that there was an original who was from God? Even your Islamic religion claims that there was an original who wasn't crucified.


Had you even read what you copied and pasted, you would realise that Paul expatiated on many things Jesus had already taught. Meaning that Paul was an early christian. Paul didnt create christanity, he was one of the writers who helped to codify the message of Christ.

If you have read the bible. you would have realised that Paul's teachings do not even reach up to a quarter of what churches and christians preach in their everyday lives.


I told you to summarize what Paul is about and yet you dodge and then copy-and-paste nonsense. What a shame.

AllNaijaBlogger:
@ Empiree,

I see that you are using dubious techniques to argue. I asked you to summarize why or how Paul created Christianity and yet again, you copy and paste long-winded nonsense from anti-christian sites and then your "supporting muslim" brother cheers you on.


You then throw all manners of irrelevant statements to confuse and deceive. If there were many people referred to as "Jesus" does that change the fact that there was an original who was from God? Even your Islamic religion claims that there was an original who wasn't crucified.


Had you even read what you copied and pasted, you would realise that Paul expatiated on many things Jesus had already taught. Meaning that Paul was an early christian. Paul didnt create christanity, he was one of the writers who helped to codify the message of Christ.

If you have read the bible. you would have realised that Paul's teachings do not even reach up to a quarter of what churches and christians preach in their everyday lives.


I told you to summarize what Paul is about and yet you dodge and then copy-and-paste nonsense. What a shame.

don't wast your time on him, I created a thread "did Paul invent Christianity?" https://www.nairaland.com/1981918/did-paul-invent-christianity non of them where able to give a reasonable reply. The atheists and muslims were just posting trash.

[quote author=AllNaijaBlogger post=32394828]

I see that you are using dubious techniques to argue. I asked you to summarize why or how Paul created Christianity and yet again, you copy and paste long-winded nonsense from anti-christian sites and then your "supporting muslim" brother cheers you on.

See, there is no easy way to summarize this. This is a complex issue. However, the only easy way to do that is by simply quoting one or two verses from your Bible. But I chose to go the other way. Besides, copy paste or not doesnt bother me. I do research everyday and store them in my library for cross reference later. It is easy for me to copy from there and place it here.

Besides, I already posted many things to this effect in previous pages. Seems you dont care to look. That's why i felt reluctant to do it here again. Rilwayne001 reminded you and others to respond to it but you guys ignored.

You then throw all manners of irrelevant statements to confuse and deceive. If there were many people referred to as "Jesus" does that change the fact that there was an original who was from God? Even your Islamic religion claims that there was an original who wasn't crucified.

Do you know how implicating @bold is to those who claim Jesus is God?. You perfectly demonstrated that Jesus is separate from God unlike other Christians. This is another flaw we've been talking about

Had you even read what you copied and pasted, you would realise that Paul expatiated on many things Jesus had already taught. Meaning that Paul was an early christian. Paul didnt create christanity, he was one of the writers who helped to codify the message of Christ.

Absolutely I read it. I took out what is beneficial to this subject. I have bunch of them in my library right now. If you want more i can provide more. But your heart can't take the pressure. Paul did not meet Jesus. The only way you can demonstrate to me that Paul didnt create christianity is by proving to me a direct statement or speech of Jesus sanctioning christianity, called his follower christians, said he established christianity. Thats the only way. You can't just talk.

Let me give you example what i am talking about from Quran. Quran clearly says that Allah created Islam (direct speech of God). Sura Maidah 3

"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

Imran 19

"Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam."

Imran 85
"And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers."

Here, Quran says Allah (God) named us Muslims

Imran 84
Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."

Haj 78
"And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper."

And many other places in the Quran. My question is do you have straight forward statement like this to prove that Jesus established Christianity or ever mentioned christian?. I dont want to hear "Christlike". That terminology was adopted after him

If you have read the bible. you would have realised that Paul's teachings do not even reach up to a quarter of what churches and christians preach in their everyday lives.

Clarify @ bolded please.

I told you to summarize what Paul is about and yet you dodge and then copy-and-paste nonsense. What a shame.

Shame. No. The only way, like i said, to prove me otherwise is by quoting Jesus establishing Christianity, called his followers Christians, said he's God and to be worshiped. Very simple. But if you refer to Paul, you proved me right. Copy paste allegation here doesnt help you....at all.

[quote author=malvisguy212 post=32399818]don't wast your time on him, I created a thread "did Paul invent Christianity?" https://www.nairaland.com/1981918/did-paul-invent-christianity non of them where able to give a reasonable reply. The atheists and muslims were just posting trash.

Not aware of this. I will check it out later. Probably something i have seen before that some guys wrote. I read similar article like that before.

Empiree,

Pls stop your deceitful style. You and another of your brethren have this style of purposely quoting someone in a way that they can't quote you back in return.

Sir, all you have done is copy and paste things that even you do not understand. Paul's teachings are not complex and do not require lengthy essays.

If you ask a christian to summarize christianity, he or she will say;

-Love your neighbour
-Turn the other cheek
-No one goes through to the father without Christ
-do unto others

The points above are Jesus's teachings and not Paul's.


Go home and accept the truth.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Empiree,

Pls stop your deceitful style. You and another of your brethren have this style of purposely quoting someone in a way that they can't quote you back in return.

Sir, all you have done is copy and paste things that even you do not understand. Paul's teachings are not complex and do not require lengthy essays.

If you ask a christian to summarize christianity, he or she will say;

-Love your neighbour
-Turn the other cheek
-No one goes through to the father without Christ
-do unto others

The points above are Jesus's teachings and not Paul's.


Go home and accept the truth.

Dont know how this is deceitful. Obviously, you have no counterclaim. I have no problem with "Love You Neighbour", Turn Other Cheek".

The important one however according to you, "No One Goes Through To The Father Without Christ". That's very true if put in it proper context. We say the same thing too. There is no way anyone can make it to paradise without faith in prophet Muhammad(Allah's blessings be upon him and his household).

So your number 3 is true but it refers to those people he was sent. He was not sent to allnaijablogger. He was sent to lost sheep of Israel. There are references from your Bible that Jesus' mission was only to the Children of Israel. Not to Nigerians and definitely not the whole world. So people in the world today must accept Muhammad as the last and final messanger to go through to God. since his message is universal.

Empiree:
Dont know how this is deceitful. Obviously, you have no counterclaim. I have no problem with "Love You Neighbour", Turn Other Cheek".

The important one however according to you, "No One Goes Through To The Father Without Christ". That's very true if put in it proper context. We say the same thing too. There is no way anyone can make it to paradise without faith in prophet Muhammad(Allah's blessings be upon him and his household).

So your number 3 is true but it refers to those people he was sent. He was not sent to allnaijablogger. He was sent to lost sheep of Israel. There are references from your Bible that Jesus' mission was only to the Children of Israel. Not to Nigerians and definitely not the whole world. So people in the world today must accept Muhammad as the last and final messanger to go through to God. since his message is universal.

Yeah.. Perfect truth.. Even though if it's real Jesus messages that's being spread it would be better... It's Paul they are following... Just like gospel of Barnabas said

Yea, I studied Gospel of Barnabas some yrs back. Very interesting. It's really contrary to other Gospels in some ways. It has some similarities with Quran. However mainstream christianity consider him heathen

shahydbinaliyu:



Yeah.. Perfect truth.. Even though if it's real Jesus messages that's being spread it would be better... It's Paul they are following... Just like gospel of Barnabas said

Empiree:
Yea, I studied Gospel of Barnabas some yrs back. Very interesting. It's really contrary to other Gospels in some ways. It has some similarities with Quran. However mainstream christianity consider him heathen

We can't call it contradiction, you know Barnabas was really alive during Jesus and for some time after Jesus is gone.. He probably reported what he saw and hear

shahydbinaliyu:


We can't call it contradiction, you know Barnabas was really alive during Jesus and for some time after Jesus is gone.. He probably reported what he saw and hear

Yes, Barnabas was the alleged "blind disciple" of Jesus. Believe me, other Gospes they have today are in conflict with Gospel of Barnabas in some ways. It is defintely not 100% correct. His Gospel says Jesus is not God, not son of God. Thats why Paul who did not even meet Jesus changed his message which christians follow today. They consider Barnabas nonsense. Barnabas was the real eyewitness. He dwelt with Jesus the son of Mary. If Christians accept his teachings, they woud leave christianity.....for good

I was postng Gospel of Barnabas here before I stopped. You may want to check previous pages about prophet Muhammad (SAW). He recorded it very good. I think I was to resume posting his Gospel now. I have it stored in my library. And Barnabas Gospel also contrdicts itself too. I saw that.

There is also Gospel of Judas. To be honest with you I dont know much about that one. I only read few pages.

Empiree:
Yes, Barnabas was the alleged "blind disciple" of Jesus. Believe me, other Gospes they have today are in conflict with Gospel of Barnabas in some ways. It is defintely not 100% correct. His Gospel says Jesus is not God, not son of God. Thats why Paul who did not even meet Jesus changed his message which christians follow today. They consider Barnabas nonsense. Barnabas was the real eyewitness. He dwelt with Jesus the son of Mary. If Christians accept his teachings, they woud leave christianity.....for good

I was postng Gospel of Barnabas here before I stopped. You may want to check previous pages about prophet Muhammad (SAW). He recorded it very good. I think I was to resume posting his Gospel now. I have it stored in my library. And Barnabas Gospel also contrdicts itself too. I saw that.

There is also Gospel of Judas. To be honest with you I dont know much about that one. I only read few pages.

Gospel of Barnabas can't be 100% correct.. Human being wrote it...so many people even contradict themselves in their notes.. Maybe handouts or educational materials.. What human wrote can never be perfect talkless of writing many volumes... it's the fact we need in what he wrote.. The corespondense..


if you study judaism. You will see it's simply raw islam... Islam was perfected during Prophet Muhammad era..

I see no reason for them not to join Islam..

Hope you understand me bro

shahydbinaliyu:





Gospel of Barnabas can't be 100% correct.. Human being wrote it...so many people even contradict themselves in their notes.. Maybe handouts or educational materials.. What human wrote can never be perfect talkless of writing many volumes... it's the fact we need in what he wrote.. The corespondense..


if you study judaism. You will see it's simply raw islam... Islam was perfected during Prophet Muhammad era..

I see no reason for them not to join Islam..

Hope you understand me bro

You are joking?

Empiree:
Yes, Barnabas was the alleged "blind disciple" of Jesus. Believe me, other Gospes they have today are in conflict with Gospel of Barnabas in some ways. It is defintely not 100% correct. His Gospel says Jesus is not God, not son of God. Thats why Paul who did not even meet Jesus changed his message which christians follow today. They consider Barnabas nonsense. Barnabas was the real eyewitness. He dwelt with Jesus the son of Mary. If Christians accept his teachings, they woud leave christianity.....for good

I was postng Gospel of Barnabas here before I stopped. You may want to check previous pages about prophet Muhammad (SAW). He recorded it very good. I think I was to resume posting his Gospel now. I have it stored in my library. And Barnabas Gospel also contrdicts itself too. I saw that.

There is also Gospel of Judas. To be honest with you I dont know much about that one. I only read few pages.

Keep reading anti-christian conspiracies. What is the difference between you and those islamophobes who cite anti-islam sites?

AllNaijaBlogger:



Keep reading anti-christian conspiracies. What is the difference between you and those islamophobes who cite anti-islam sites?

Brother, please be reasonable here. These are researches done by me and others. Most of what I said are truth or almost because evidences abound. But those christian fellas clearly quote from anti-Islam places, bogus ahadith and misquoted Quran itself etc. And they even provided webites they got them from. And in most cases we refute them.

But christianity is not the case. I dont really have particular website(s). I just research online and offline.

Is like a christian says muslims have more than one arabic version of Quran. In order for us to refute the person, all we have to say is please provide evidence (by bringing two different Quran that contradict forward). If he cant his case will be dismissed. This is not the case with Bible. We can easily provide different versions of Bible/Gospel contradicting themselves or within themselves.

You can't deny existence Gospel of Barnabas. I will be suprised if you dont know. This is not bigotry. This is educating ourselves. Onus is on you to study these things. It's not about attacking your religion or quoting anti-christian websites. We talking about salvation here. This is not a joke. As you can see, you performed poorly defending message of Jesus.Bro..please ........................THINK

AllNaijaBlogger:



You are joking?

if i didn't study Judaism i won't say that... besides what do you know about Judaism?

visit shahydcharming.

through google and see the article

Jesus IS the bible. He did not need to "read". He is the content of the bible. He inspired it, authored it, edited it. Sold it. Rates it.


It says in John 1:1

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with G-d and the word was G-d.

In Genesis, G-d said; Let "us" make man in our own image.

Xiadnat:

You so boring. A lot have been said earlier enough to trash what you posted up there^

Empiree:
You so boring. A lot have been said earlier enough to trash what you posted up there^

I don't care. And I didn't read any of that. I wrote my piece. Move along if you don't like. No need to notify me.