"Muslims believe in all the messengers and the books revealed to them...and that Muhammad is the final prophet, it doesn't where the original Bible is, it's not my obligation to use it, we have quran now which is the final testament"
The statement above made by a fellow NL provoked the questions below. Now I perceive not all muslims may agree with the statement credited to a fellow muslim hence in answering, kindly state if the speaker was right or wrong.

1. The OT and NT were off shoots of the promise made to Abraham and were prophesied ahead of time. How come the final testament is bereft of the faintest jot of reference by these books revealed? And has no reference to the framework- God's promise to Abraham?

2. Since God is not the author of confusion, why was the New Covenant called Everlasting Covenant? especially if there was to be another?

3. Both testaments, Old and New, were ratified by blood. By what was the final testament ratified?

4. The last prophet was as Israel/the Church knows them, was John the baptist whose coming was clearly (expressedly) prophesied and his birth as such was attested to by angel Gabriel; mother, father and all Israel testified of his ministry and were witnesses. Whence a final prophet in the books? And why the deafening silence by the books? And this prophet testified that Jesus Christ was greater than himself and would baptise with the Spirit, why does the final prophet equate Christ with the same man and those in his class? Who was right?

5. Most of the prophets and Moses prophesied of Jesus Christ and those gifted with that office today still point to Him. Why then was this absent in the final prophet's teachings?

6. All prophets were inspired and they spoke by the Holy Spirit; the Word of the Lord came to them. Why the sudden change and substitution of the Holy Spirit by an angel?

7. If Mohammed had come in the inter-testament period,perhaps some of my questions would be unnecessary. But for one who came about 5+ centuries after and reiterated similar laws after the pattern of the OT's laws (with some differences) after God had clearly said He was going to make a New Covenant, NOT ACCORDING TO THE OLD, and He had already perfected same through Christ, the claims of such an one suggests that God later reversed His own words (Impossible!). How do you explain or clarify this?
8.The person quoted said the Quran is the final testament and that he is under NO OBLIGATION to refer to any other Book, is this in accordance to the teaching in the Quran?
I gain nothing arguing with you but, on a forum where we have many informed readers/ contributors on both sides who will gain therefrom, answers will be appreciated.

Regards

I wish you goodluck in your quest

Thanks a bunch; see it's not fair to make a verdict without a fair hearing being granted.

Satan has done a really good job by fusing twisted Biblical concepts into the koran. And this is boxed into them from age Zero so that, it takes Christ alone to flush off their head.
I went early to church for Mid-week service. I was having a discussion with someone, when this guy walked up to us and asked to see the pastor. The pastor was not yet around. We asked to help. He said, he was a Muslim, but he didn't understand why anytime he is in the Mosque he hears a voice that tells him to leave this place and go to church.
He said, it all started in Saudi Arabia when Him and his Father went to Saudi. Right inside the Mosque, he heard that voice, he was confused he looked up to see who spoke, but everyone was praying. They were there for three weeks, anytime he closed his eyes, he'd saw himself in a gathering singing and dancing. He had never been into any church before. When they came back to Nigeria. He could no longer pray, he won't go to the Mosque again. His behavoiur towards issues became softened without being preached to. His wives noticed the difference but he couldn't trust them to tell them. The voice came back asking him to go to church, he said one day it was so clear like a man talking to his friend, so he had to ask back, which church? He said he heard Winners. He never knew what that meant. He walks passed churches never cared with their names. So he went out and asked a woman he met on the way, where Winners was, he was directed to a winners cHapel church close by. He said he couldn't go on being a Muslim, it took him a long time to make up his mind and he was ready for what ever his family wll do to him.
He had been so scared of his father, because he is very wealthy and influential and can have him killed. But then he was ready for anything. About his wives, he said they will have to go. He will remain with his first wife only.
Well. I had mixed feelings. I know how Muslims hate Bishop Oyedepo, I felt he came to infiltrate in oder to bring in a bomb easily into the congrgation. But we listened to him, waited until the pastor came. We handed him over to the pastor who is also born and raised in the North. Praise God, he is baptized and still coming.
So, its Christs alone that can bring these people out of the grip of Satan.
Let's keep praying for them.

Another question: Which came first? The Hijab or Islam? In other words, did Arab women use the Hijab before Islam or they wear it now because Islamic teachings command it?

Yet another question inspired by lexiconkabirr's fp thread:

Since Muslims believe God gave David the psalms which emphatically admonishes the use of singing and use of musical instruments (even Jesus sang a hymn and God gave Moses a song to teach Israel), why the sudden prohibition of music?
Besides, if all music has satan as its source, who then isnpired David?

Scholar8200:
Yet another question inspired by lexiconkabirr's fp thread:

Since Muslims believe God gave David the psalms which emphatically admonishes the use of singing and use of musical instruments (even Jesus sang a hymn and God gave Moses a song to teach Israel), why the sudden prohibition of music?
Besides, if all music has satan as its source, who then isnpired David?

Rilwayne001 and the Islamic horde won't answer this kind of questions

alBHAGDADI:
Rilway.ne001 and the Islamic horde won't answer this kind of questions

The issue of music is still being debated among Muslim scholars. So, that lexicokabir's school of thought deem it as haraam doesn't mean all Muslim do. As for me, i don't really see anything bad in good music passing good message to people or praising the name of God. The bad ones are the ones that i deem has haraam. So you'd rather call him to answer this and not me because i don't subscribe to his views on this.

Please let me enjoy this 'fura' and 'nunu' that I'm drinking.

Rilwayne001:


The issue of music is still being debated among Muslim scholars. So that lexicokabir's school of thought deem it as haraam does mean all Muslim do. As for me, i don't really see anything bad in good music passing good message to people or praising the name of God. The bad ones are the ones that i deem has haraam. So you'd rather call him to answer this and not me because i don't subscribe to his views on this.

Please let me enjoy this 'fura' and 'nunu' that I'm drinking.

But you have Wizkid's music on your phone na.
Anyway, I called your attention mainly for the other questions raised in this thread.

Enjoy your fura de nunu, but make sure those Fulani herdsmen don't brainwash you into their own form of terrorism o

Scholar8200:
Yet another question inspired by lexiconkabirr's fp thread:

Since Muslims believe God gave David the psalms which emphatically admonishes the use of singing and use of musical instruments (even Jesus sang a hymn and God gave Moses a song to teach Israel), why the sudden prohibition of music?
Besides, if all music has satan as its source, who then isnpired David?

Islam DEFINITELY does not endorse this modern music. You can at least say these songs are inspIred by shaytan. I'm not talking about those you highlighted above. You can NEVER compare the one above with Rihanna, Wizkid, Maria, 50 cent you name them. The later involve sexual lyrics, adult contents....you name it.

The later is what I believe Islam condemned.

Empiree:
Islam DEFINITELY does not endorse this modern music. You can at least say these songs are inspIred by shaytan. I'm not talking about those you highlighted above. You can NEVER compare the one above with Rihanna, Wizkid, Maria, 50 cent you name them. The later involve sexual lyrics, adult contents....you name it.

The later is what I believe Islam condemned.

Of course all songs promoting lewdness and crime are condemned. My question was as it concerns lexiconkabir saying that all songs (sans differentiation) and use of musical instrument were condemned.

In any case, I believe your positions are clear. However, I would have liked one that shares that belief with lexiconkabir(on grounds he/she considers authentic) to answer that question.

Scholar8200:
Yet another question inspired by lexiconkabirr's fp thread:

Since Muslims believe God gave David the psalms which emphatically admonishes the use of singing and use of musical instruments (even Jesus sang a hymn and God gave Moses a song to teach Israel), why the sudden prohibition of music?
Besides, if all music has satan as its source, who then isnpired David?

why is the OT no longer a source for Christianity today?

Scholar8200:
Of course all songs promoting lewdness and crime are condemned. My question was as it concerns lexiconkabir saying that all songs (sans differentiation) and use of musical instrument were condemned.

In any case, I believe your positions are clear. However, I would have liked one that shares that belief with lexiconkabir(on grounds he/she considers authentic) to answer that question.

Well, over to him.

lexiconkabir:


why is the OT no longer a source for Christianity today?

Good question

lexiconkabir:


why is the OT no longer a source for Christianity today?

Can you be more explicit and perhaps give references?

Scholar8200:
Can you be more explicit and perhaps give references?

do you still apply the mosaic law?

lexiconkabir:


do you still apply the mosaic law?

Bear in mind that it was not just a set of laws in a vacuum; they were TERMS OF A COVENANT. And Law tells me that a covenant (similar to a contractual agreement) is annulled when one of the parties breach the terms exactly what Israel did. This much did God declare in Jeremiah 31:31-33 after much patience, where He revealed the New COVENANT.

But mind you, the Mosaic law was a combination of moral, ceremonial(ritualistic) and civic law. The last 2 were there because Israel was to be Theocratic (unlike today) hence their constitutional and cultural practices was given by God and those were not without a meaning / essence eg the Passover pointing to Jesus.

The first is timeless, describes God's nature and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ and is still being fulfilled today in those that truly believe Him.

Besides, God did not repeal His promise to Abraham that in His Seed ALL the nations, not just the ones that had the first benefit, were going to be blessed, when He gave the TERMS of the Old Covenant. There is Divine timing and the OT was meant to continue till when God's time for that promise comes.

Scholar8200:



Bear in mind that it was not just a set of laws in a vacuum; they were TERMS OF A COVENANT. And Law tells me that a covenant (similar to a contractual agreement) is annulled when one of the parties breach the terms exactly what Israel did. This much did God declare in Jeremiah 31:31-33 after much patience, where He revealed the New COVENANT.

new covenant different from the other right?

lexiconkabir:


new covenant different from the other right?

Kindly go through the update to that quote.^^

Scholar8200:
Kindly go through the update to that quote.^^

I just need a yes or no, do you apply the mosaic law?

lexiconkabir:


I just need a yes or no, do you apply the mosaic law?

What is the mosaic law?

Scholar8200:
What is the mosaic law?

i should be asking you that, you have it in your Bible.

lexiconkabir:


i should be asking you that, you have it in your Bible.

Then go back to this analysis below and let your question be specific:

It's just like somebody asking me, "do you follow the act of parliament?'' My question will be which? and in respect to what?

Scholar8200:

Bear in mind that it was not just a set of laws in a vacuum; they were TERMS OF A COVENANT. And Law tells me that a covenant (similar to a contractual agreement) is annulled when one of the parties breach the terms exactly what Israel did. This much did God declare in Jeremiah 31:31-33 after much patience, where He revealed the New COVENANT.
But mind you, the Mosaic law was a combination of moral, ceremonial(ritualistic) and civic law. The last 2 were there because Israel was to be Theocratic (unlike today) hence their constitutional and cultural practices was given by God and those were not without a meaning / essence eg the Passover pointing to Jesus.
The first is timeless, describes God's nature and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ and is still being fulfilled today in those that truly believe Him.
Besides, God did not repeal His promise to Abraham that in His Seed ALL the nations, not just the ones that had the first benefit, were going to be blessed, when He gave the TERMS of the Old Covenant. There is Divine timing and the OT was meant to continue till when God's time for that promise comes.

Scholar8200:
What is the mosaic law?

i wouldn't want to waste my time here, Christians don't stone to death for adultery, Christian men don't leave their homes when their wives are menstruating, they don't Make animal sacrifice, you dont see pig meat as forbidden.

or do you?

lexiconkabir:


i wouldn't want to waste my time here, Christians don't stone to death for adultery, Christian men don't leave their homes when their wives are menstruating, they don't Make animal sacrifice, you dont see pig meat as forbidden.

In order not to waste time, why not answer my question that brought you here?

Well for the points you raised:

1. That's because the Gentiles are not under a Theocracy(hence we do not enforce judgment on offenders, the Govt does) however, Israel was. Besides, Jesus taught that the Law (notice that the Sermon on the Mount dwelt on the moral aspect ALONE) categorised the one that fantasized on women and those involved in the very act of adultery as the same, whence the justice in stoning when you are just as guilty? Only a conscience-less person would attempt that.The real essence of the Law when truly interpreted was to bring man to God as the ONLY one that could justify man before Him.

2. As regards menses, that was a ceremonial/cultural situation. If you dont believe kindly show where death was to be the punishment for the husband who didnt. That is one of the ways to know when a portion is ceremonial or moral.

3. Animal sacrifice were part of the ceremonial and did not originate from Moses' law but Abel and he did same by faith. Faith realising that man's acceptance with God had to be accomplished by a Substitute viz He that was referred to in Genesis 3:15 after the fall.

4. As regards pork, that was another ceremonial/cultural matter for Israel as a nation. The meaning of the ceremonial practices given by God was understood. Jesus also clarified this when He said only that which comes out of a man defiles him. Mark 7:14-23

I would have loved for the Muslims to address the op.

Scholar8200:


In order not to waste time, why not answer my question that brought you here?

Well for the points you raised:

1. That's because the Gentiles are not under a Theocracy(hence we do not enforce judgment on offenders, the Govt does) however, Israel was. Besides, Jesus taught that the Law (notice that the Sermon on the Mount dwelt on the moral aspect ALONE) categorised the one that fantasized on women and those involved in the very act of adultery as the same, whence the justice in stoning when you are just as guilty? Only a conscience-less person would attempt that.The real essence of the Law when truly interpreted was to bring man to God as the ONLY one that could justify man before Him.

Bolded has lots of implications. I think thats what Christians mean by "let he without sin cast stone". Who is without sin?. If govt is to apply this to act of terrorism, then, govt would not be able to enact law for terrorism bcus themselves are terror. Or bcus police are human (sinful) they should not arrest crime offenders. The list goes on and on. So your so illogical.

Fact is, Christians have abandoned God's Law. Jesus NEVER EVER abolished Old Laws.

Empiree:
Bolded has lots of implications. I think thats what Christians mean by "let he without sin cast stone". Who is without sin?. If govt is to apply this to act of terrorism, then, govt would not be able to enact law for terrorism bcus themselves are terror. Or bcus police are human (sinful) they should not arrest crime offenders. The list goes on and on. So your so illogical.

Fact is, Christians have abandoned God's Law. Jesus NEVER EVER abolished Old Laws.

your opinion is noted.

sonofthunder:
I would have loved for the Muslims to address the op.

Exactly!

But lexiconkabir rilwayne001 and Empire have all been avoiding it by using their usual diversionary tactics.

This simply means they can't. If they could, it will only render them exposing Islam's barbarism and archaic thinking.

Empiree:
Bolded has lots of implications. I think thats what Christians mean by "let he without sin cast stone". Who is without sin?. If govt is to apply this to act of terrorism, then, govt would not be able to enact law for terrorism bcus themselves are terror. Or bcus police are human (sinful) they should not arrest crime offenders. The list goes on and on. So your so illogical.

Fact is, Christians have abandoned God's Law. Jesus NEVER EVER abolished Old Laws.

Christians didn't abandon God's law. It has now been written in our hearts.

Hebrews 10:16

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

As for government law enforcement agencies, those do not belong to God, so they can enforce their own laws. You have forgotten the essence of the sin in the garden of Eden. Man dumped God and decided to rule himself. That's why we have man made laws and government. It is those laws mankind has been following. Those laws permit to lock up someone in jail for offending you.

But Christians follow the new laws of God which late written in their hearts, not on paper. This law includes forgiveness, love and peace. That is why a true Christian will hardly drag you to court. We settle our disputes in the congregation as advised by Apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians 6:1

If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord's people?

I think you guys should address the OP instead of attacking the messenger

still waiting