Kobojunkie:
That idea itself is not according to what Jesus Christ Himself taught. The believing and confessing of sins were not meant to be for public consumption. The idea of "calling people up" was not according to the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and certainly not what Paul suggested in the references you put forth earlier.

If you cannot cite Biblical instances where Jesus or the apostle Paul spoke against it, you are simply not making any point at all.

Did Jesus instruct printing tracts or preaching on TVs. Apparently not. However, he instructed that we preach. The use of TV or tracts thus falls in place.

Same applies to alter call. It's a way of getting people consciously acknowledge their decision. It's towards a noble cause.
What's the fuse?

Did the disciples in fact "CALL" the people in that passage to do make public their confessions and all they did? Or did the people, of their own mindset, do what is described in the passage you picked out there from the book of Acts?

Well, their confession apparently was done in consonance with Paul's preaching. If Paul had preached against it, why would they have done it?

Also, whether Paul made a CALL for them to do this or not, the point is that they responded that way, and it's recorded in the Bible for us to see and learn from.

If you are unable to cite any instance from scriptures against the practice, you'll do well to mind your business.

damosky12:
If you cannot cite Biblical instances where Jesus or the apostle Paul spoke against it, you are simply not making any point at all.

I think you have that backwards. Jesus Christ is the one we believe in, right? So, we all take our matching orders from Jesus Christ, not the other way around.
And as I already said before, what Paul said does not support your claim for an altar call either.

damosky12:
Did Jesus instruct printing tracts or preaching on TVs. Apparently not. However, he instructed that we preach. The use of TV or tracts thus falls in place. Same applies to alter call. It's a way of getting people consciously acknowledge their decision. It's towards a noble cause.
What's the fuse?

Jesus Christ did not instruct us on the use of TV or the internet but what He did do was, even through His own example, show us exactly what we ought to do as far as being His followers in concerned. He taught us How to preach and what to preach. And not a single time did He teach us to call people forward to publicly confess their sins or the sort. He even warned against public show of piety of any and every kind. So from that we know that any public show of such is not of Jesus Christ. It is in His teaching... you should read it.

damosky12:
Well, their confession apparently was done in consonance with Paul's preaching. If Paul had preached against it, why would they have done it?

Please be sure to read the verses even before you post them on here so you are certain you know what they infact say to you. Paul, in the verse you posted, NEVER sanctioned your kind of "Alter calls". If you go back to my previous response, you will find that I said this even then. He never called on people to publicly confess sins or the sort. That would have been in direct disobedience of the very commandment of Jesus Christ, and I believe Paul knew that.

damosky12:
Also, whether Paul made a CALL for them to do this or not, the point is that they responded that way, and it's recorded in the Bible for us to see and learn from.
If you are unable to cite any instance from scriptures against the practice, you'll do well to mind your business.

It matters whether Paul CALLED them to publicly declare or not. Jesus Christ Commanded against such public shows among His followers. So it would have been AntiChrist of Paul to have done such.

Kobojunkie:

And as I already said before, what Paul said does not support your claim for an altar call either.

Well, Paul spoke about believing and Confessing the Lordship of Jesus. Didn't he? (Rom 10:9-10). Does he specify that this takes place in private? Apparently not!

Jesus Christ did not instruct us on the use of TV or the internet but what He did do was, even through His own example, show us exactly what we ought to do as far as being His followers in concerned. He taught us How to preach and what to preach. And not a single time did He teach us to call people forward to publicly confess their sins or the sort. He even warned against public show of piety of any and every kind.

You mean the same Jesus who said:

Matthew 10:32-33
[32] Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
[33]But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

The Confessing narrative comes to play even in the word attributed to Jesus.

Interestingly, Jesus speaks for Confessing him BEFORE MEN.

You'll do well to be humble enough to succumb to this...

So from that we know that any public show of such is not of Jesus Christ. It is in His teaching... you should read it.

Well, I hope you do. Read the above scripture again, and succumb to it.

Please be sure to read the verses even before you post them on here so you are certain you know what they infact say to you...

Neither Jesus nor Paul seemed to speak against "alter call." On the contrary, we find CLEAR EVIDENCE that shows that they are scripturally valid.

Read again.

damosky12:
I am not sure you know what the bolded phrase means. But, that's no p. Jesus wrote no book. The early church was built on the teachings of the Apostles (read Acts 2:42). What we understand as the words of Jesus (in Matt, Mark, Luke, and John) weren't written for doctrinal intentions. Btw, they came years after the epistles were in circulation.

Interesting claims you make ! The early church was built on the teachings of the Apostles and not the teachings that the Apostles got from Jesus Christ, and eventually reminded of by the SPirit of Truth who showed up on the day of Pentecost, leading them on after wards?

Kobojunkie:
Interesting claims you make ! The early church was built on the teachings of the Apostles and not the teachings that the Apostles got from Jesus Christ, and eventually reminded of by the SPirit of Truth who showed up on the day of Pentecost, leading them on after wards?

Shelve this for a second and admit the falsity of your earlier claim, in the light of Jesus' words.

We can come back to this later...

damosky12:
Shelve this for a second and admit the falsity of your earlier claim, in the light of Jesus' words.
We can come back to this later...

Shelve your claim that Jesus Christ was not the source of the teachings preached by the Apostles?
Shelve your assumption that the apostles preached doctrines of their own and not that which Jesus Christ Himself taught them, and the Spirit of God continued to remind and instruct them on?

Kobojunkie:
Shelve your belief that Jesus Christ was not the source of the teachings preached by the Apostles?

Ok. Let's put this on a hold.

Let's honestly clarify the first issue.

If you are wrong, admit it, instead of shifting the goal post...

Let's learn and be edified!

damosky12:

Ok. Let's put this on a hold.
Let's honestly clarify the first issue.
If you are wrong, admit it, instead of shifting the goal post...
Let's learn and be edified!

Clarify what issue?

Kobojunkie:
Clarify what issue?

Matthew 10:32-33
[32] Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
[33]But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said the bolded. How do juxtapose that with your earlier stance on public confession?

Kobojunkie:

And as I already said before, what Paul said does not support your claim for an altar call either.

Well, Paul spoke about believing and Confessing the Lordship of Jesus. Didn't he? (Rom 10:9-10). Does he specify that this takes place in private? Apparently not!

Jesus Christ did not instruct us on the use of TV or the internet but what He did do was, even through His own example, show us exactly what we ought to do as far as being His followers in concerned. He taught us How to preach and what to preach. And not a single time did He teach us to call people forward to publicly confess their sins or the sort. He even warned against public show of piety of any and every kind.

You mean the same Jesus who said:

Matthew 10:32-33
[32] Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
[33]But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

The Confessing narrative comes to play even in the word attributed to Jesus.

Interestingly, Jesus speaks for Confessing him BEFORE MEN.

You'll do well to be humble enough to succumb to this...

So from that we know that any public show of such is not of Jesus Christ. It is in His teaching... you should read it.

Well, I hope you do. Read the above scripture again, and succumb to it.

Please be sure to read the verses even before you post them on here so you are certain you know what they infact say to you...

Neither Jesus nor Paul seemed to speak against "alter call." On the contrary, we find CLEAR EVIDENCE that shows that they are scripturally valid.

Read again.

damosky12:

Matthew 10:32-33
[32] Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
[33]But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said the bolded. How do juxtapose that with your earlier stance on public confession?

Let me get this straight, are you suggesting here that, from your careful study of the above passage, ofcourse within the provided context, you came away with the understanding that indeed, Jesus Christ did indeed command His followers to CALL on others, even former sinners, to publicly confess Jesus Christ, so Jesus Christ can bear witness before His Father of, not the followers of Jesus Christ, but the others who were called by them?

damosky12:
Well, Paul spoke about believing and Confessing the Lordship of Jesus. Didn't he? (Rom 10:9-10). Does he specify that this takes place in private? Apparently not!

So, you believe that Paul speaking of confessing the Lordship of Jesus Christ meaning he was there in support of publicly CALLING on sinners, to confess as is done during "altar" calls?

Here's something for you to ponder why you continue to believe as you do, Jesus Christ's commandment about confessing Him publicly was directed at His followers, and this after about a year of their walking with Him, and not to those who were not already His followers. Also, recall that even Paul's letters to the romans were written to fellow believers, and not to those who did not already know and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Kobojunkie:
Let me get this straight, are you suggesting here that, from your careful study of the above passage, ofcourse within the provided context, you came away with the understanding that indeed, Jesus Christ did indeed command His followers to CALL on others, even former sinners, to publicly confess Jesus Christ, so Jesus Christ can bear witness before His Father of, not the followers of Jesus Christ, but the others who were called by them?

Drop your Kantian spectacles and be plain. These were your words:

Jesus Christ did not instruct us on the use of TV... And not a single time did He teach us to call people forward to publicly confess their sins or the sort. He even warned against public show of piety of any and every kind.

But it turns out Jesus spoke in support of people openly confessing Him in public. Jesus is in support of such public confession of his name.

From this, any sincere and sane human being can infer that Jesus is in support of public declaration if his Lordship (as they do in alter calls)...

Ni scripture in the whole if the Bible speaks against this! None! All we have are sufficient evidences that approve it.

Think through this.

Kobojunkie:
So, you believe that Paul speaking of confessing the Lordship of Jesus Christ meaning he was there in support of publicly CALLING on sinners, to confess as is done during "altar" calls?

Here's something for you to ponder why you continue to believe as you do, Jesus Christ's commandment about confessing Him publicly was directed at His followers, and this after about a year of their walking with Him, and not to those who were not already His followers. Also, recall that even Paul's letters to the romans were written to fellow believers, and not to those who did not already know and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Man, sincerely, I honestly suggest you stop arguing. This is blind argument for crying out loud!

You seem to have no clue about this...

In the Matt 10 I quoted, Jesus sent his disciples to preach His kingdom. He was addressing the situations they would encounter... The confession was meant for the recipients of their message, not them!

Paul was explaining what it takes to be born again/saved in Romans 10. The confession was meant for the unsaved, not the saved.

Would you stop this, please.

Make points you are sure of! If you aren't sure, admit, and move on!

damosky12:
Drop your Kantian spectacles and be plain. These were your words:
But it turns out Jesus spoke in support of people openly confessing Him in public. Jesus is in support of such public confession of his name.
From this, any sincere and sane human being can infer that Jesus is in support of public declaration if his Lordship (as they do in alter calls)...
Ni scripture in the whole if the Bible speaks against this! None! All we have are sufficient evidences that approve it.
Think through this.

Now go back to what I typed, and read carefully and slowly so you not switch topics of discussion mid way through like is the way with many in these things.

Kobojunkie:
And as I already said before, what Paul said does not support your claim for an altar call either.
Jesus Christ did not instruct us on the use of TV or the internet but what He did do was, even through His own example, show us exactly what we ought to do as far as being His followers in concerned. He taught us How to preach and what to preach. And not a single time did He teach us to call people forward to publicly confess their sins or the sort. He even warned against public show of piety of any and every kind. So from that we know that any public show of such is not of Jesus Christ. It is in His teaching... you should read it.

Compare that with the verses you lifted from Matthew 10, and see that Jesus Christ never instructs His followers to even call on others to publicly confess their sins or the sort that is observed during altar calls... and He certainly never told them that they could do such themselves.

Genesis 17 vs 3-8 (ERV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
27. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.
28. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.[h]
29. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?[i] And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
30. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.
31. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
32. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
33. but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Above are the same verses you pulled out of Matthew 10 earlier, only now with the context even much clearer for anyone who has eyes to see. Notice how not a single place in there does Jesus Christ instruct any of His followers to call on others to confess anything?

lonikit:
I think alter call has no relationship with salvation. salvation is something that happens in the heart and raising of hands and moving out to the alter during a crusade has nothing to do with it. in fact, it discourages some people because they are used to alter call and yet, no evidence of salvation in their lives. I also think there is no injunction to that in the bible so, why indoctrinating it.

"³⁰Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
³¹They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household."
- Acts 13:31-32

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord,"
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
- Romans 10:9

"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven."
- Matthew 10:32

"I tell you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels of God."
- Luke 12:8

The altars called forward, is for them, one of the beginning of making disciples of all nation steps. A small step for man, a big step for mankind

Kobojunkie:
The very term 'altar' ought to be questioned here. Whose altar? Definitely, Jesus Christ never called anyone to set up, let alone step before any altars for His sake, so how could some sort of call to an arbitrary 'altar' have anything to do with Jesus Christ in anyway?

"Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?"
- 1 Corinthians 3:16

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God?
And you are not your own"
- 1 Corinthians 6:19

The very person stepping forward is the temple of God, with an altar within his/her body, lmso. There is nothing wrong in doing an altar call forward midwife style delivery assistance deliverance from the old and past into the new now and future

Kobojunkie:
Now go back to what I typed, and read carefully and slowly so you not switch topics of discussion mid way through like is the way with many in these things.

Jesus spoke against PUBLIC show of piety but instructed that people confesses Him BEFORE MEN?

Pause, think!

It's either He loves public acknowledging or He hates it.

He can't love it and hate it Na.

Compare that with the verses you lifted from Matthew 10, and see that Jesus Christ never instructs His followers to even call on others to publicly confess their sins or the sort that is observed during altar calls... and He certainly never told them that they could do such themselves.

He never instructed his disciples to allow others acknowledge (taken from the same Greek word which means confess) him publicly?
Then what was their preaching about?
Would they not preach in public? Would people not openly acknowledge or reject their gospel in public?

Above are the same verses you pulled out of Matthew 10 earlier, only now with the context even much clearer for anyone who has eyes to see. Notice how not a single place in there does Jesus Christ instruct any of His followers to call on others to confess anything?

Luke 12:8-10
[8]Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
[9]But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
[10]And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

In context, this just couldn't refer to the disciples. The verse 10 makes it obvious. It refers to those they would preach to. It was the recipients duty to acknowledge the Lordship, reject, or speak against Him.

The Apostles already proclaimed him before men by preaching. The Confessing/acknowledging or speaking against just couldn't refer to them.


The response to the gospel is to believe and acknowledge. Whether it is done in public or not is inconsequential.

No part scripture can be used to write off "alter calls." I have cited you several parts of scriptures to this effect. You can't find one to back up your point. Not one!

damosky12:


Jesus spoke against PUBLIC show of piety but instructed that people confesses Him BEFORE MEN?

Pause, think!

It's either He loves public acknowledging or He hates it.

He can't love it and hate it Na.


He never instructed his disciples to allow others acknowledge (taken from the same Greek word which means confess) him publicly?
Then what was their preaching about?
Would they not preach in public? Would people not openly acknowledge or reject their gospel in public?



Luke 12:8-10
[8]Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
[9]But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
[10]And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

In context, this just couldn't refer to the disciples. The verse 10 makes it obvious. It refers to those they would preach to. It was the recipients duty to acknowledge the Lordship, reject, or speak against Him.

The Apostles already proclaimed him before men by preaching. The Confessing/acknowledging or speaking against just couldn't refer to them.


The response to the gospel is to believe and acknowledge. Whether it is done in public or not is inconsequential.

No part scripture can be used to write off "alter calls." I have cited you several parts of scriptures to this effect. You can't find one to back up your point. Not one!

At this point, I am speechless! Obviously this is another case of language comprehension problems that I honestly don't ever want to have to deal with again. Since you seem to want to win this so much that you are willing to overlook what is written to score, I will say you can have it, abeg!
I want to at this point move on to discussing with those who are at least able to read please! Thanks for your time!

Kobojunkie:
I think you need to be careful the way you go about looking to inserting additional meaning where it does not exist. The verse in Matthew 3 vs 1o you quoted where the words of John the Baptist, and he was a follower of the Old Covenant, not Jesus Christ, the new Covenant. John was in no way referring to the Old Covenant. John the Baptist never discouraged people from following the Old Covenant, not even after his encounter with Jesus Christ.

John never insinuated God was attempting to turn back on His word, or Change His mind. The Old Covenant is the same covenant that bore the Fruit called Jesus Christ. Was He not a good fruit hence? When Jesus Christ lived, even He lived His life in obedience to the Old Covenant, so how can the Old Covenant that God Himself, in His wisdom, set up, be considered a bad tree?
Again, I suggest caution as you look at these things. John the Baptist was speaking to the Pharisees, so it makes sense to assume that they were the trees He was referring to since Trees don't live forever, but Covenants are forever.

Where is the place of Abraham? I don't understand your question. Abraham was not even a prophet of God but a man who came to God, eventually becoming God's friend. So, why ask where his place is?

Jesus Christ is the Word out of God's own Mouth(Truth) who was made flesh and given t us to not only teach us but show us exactly what it is that God wants us to do in obedience of Him in other for us to quality as Sons of God. Why compare Him to anyone like Abraham or Mohammed to begin with?

Jesus Christ is God's human avatar...the embodiment of God's new Covenant, the eternal life promised to all those who accept Him, and the Only way to God. Why compare the promise that the New Covenant brings to the Old covenant promise which, as you should have read are two completely different promises and for two completely different sets of people.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant on behalf of those who would choose to leave it and follow Him. Obviously, they could not simply walk out on the covenant without being damned by their acts, that is why Jesus Christ came and lived as He did to buy them from the Old Covenent so they could walk into the New Covenant without consequence.

We, the gentiles however, were never bound to the Old Covenant so we were and still are free to engage the New Covenant without consequence. Only consequence comes when we attempt to leave the New Covenant that we have chosen.
Shadow of what? Not according to God Himself and certainly not according to Jesus Christ, who even while He lived, encouraged people to continue to obey the Law, and live according to the ways that God had instructed them.

the law Jesus stood for, has nothing to do with what we are saying.
The law is for everyone whether you practice Judaism, you are a Muslim or a Christian.

Simple questions and answers:

1. Between the old covenant and the new covenant which is greater?
2. On whom was the old covenant or Judaism founded when God said i will make you the father of many nations, is it not Abraham? Abraham therefore is the prophet of Judaism(Abraham may not necessarily prophesy to be a prophet as the founder of any religion in those days used to be regarded by the people as the prophet of that religion)
3. On whom was the new covenant found, is it not Jesus Christ? Therefore Jesus Christ is the prophet of Christianity.
4. On whom was Islam found, is it not prophet Muhammad? Therefore Muhammad is the prophet of Islam

You should understand that this is what I'm driving at

paxonel:
the law Jesus stood for, has nothing to do with what we are saying.
The law is for everyone whether you practice Judaism, you are a Muslim or a Christian.

If you mean available to all people's... Jews and Gentiles alike, then sure!

paxonel:
Simple questions and answers:
1. Between the old covenant and the new covenant which is greater?

None! I mean how do you decide for sure if one of God's own Covenant is truly greater than another God's own Covenants? Since God is Truth, then both His Covenants are Truth. So, what exactly do we compare both on, or by?

paxonel:
2. On whom was the old covenant or Judaism founded when God said i will make you the father of many nations, is it not Abraham? Abraham therefore is the prophet of Judaism(Abraham may not necessarily prophesy to be a prophet as the founder of any religion in those days used to be regarded by the people as the prophet of that religion)

Um, according to the Bible, Moses was the prophet through whom God delivered His Old Covenant to His people, Israel. I don't believe He founded the Old Covenant, and neither do I believe Abraham founded anything of the sort. God founded the Old covenant since He, God, made the promise to Abraham, not the other way around. And it was also He, God, who picked Moses to be the prophet through whom He would deliver His Covenant to the people of Israel.

Abraham was not a prophet of Judaism. Abraham knew nothing of the details of what was to come. He simply knew of God making him a promise to give the land to his descendants. Abraham was a mere man who pleased God so, that God decided to use Him as root in both agreements. God first made the promise to Abraham, a promise He reiterated to Isaac, and then Jacob, and so on.

Is Jesus Christ not also descended from the same line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

paxonel:
3. On whom was the new covenant found, is it not Jesus Christ? Therefore Jesus Christ is the prophet of Christianity.
4. On whom was Islam found, is it not prophet Muhammad? Therefore Muhammad is the prophet of Islam
You should understand that this is what I'm driving at

I need to be honest here as I fail to see where you are going with the discussion at this point. What I said of both covenants both running concurrently to this point in time has not changed and will never change, according to God Himself.

P.S. Unless you believe the God of the Bible to be a celestial schitzophrenic of sorts, you would know that He could not have founded Islam.

Kobojunkie:

None! I mean how do you decide for sure if one of God's own Covenant is truly greater than another God's own Covenants?

are you for real?
It seems you were converted recently from another religion into Christianity

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Since God is Truth, then both His Covenants are Truth. So, what exactly do we compare both on, or by?

This is the comparison.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

So, the last covenant is greater, greater in the sense that he brought eternal life which the other covenants lack John 3:16

Um, according to the Bible, Moses was the prophet through whom God delivered His Old Covenant to His people, Israel.

No!
Moses delivered the law, not the old covenant.
The old covenant came through Abraham. Genesis 17:1.
That was why the children of israel repeatedly told Jesus that Abraham as their father, not Moses. John 8:39

I don't believe He founded the Old Covenant, and neither do I believe Abraham founded anything of the sort.

now that you have heard it from me, it's your choice to believe it or deliberately discard it

God founded the Old covenant since He, God, made the promise to Abraham, not the other way around. And it was also He, God, who picked Moses to be the prophet through whom He would deliver His Covenant to the people of Israel.

In that case, God founded all religions too. The question is, on whom was the religion founded, that is the distinguishing factor, the most important figure.
Jesus says I'm the way the truth and the life.
That means Muhammad and his Islam can never be the way or the truth
Abraham and his Judaism can never be the way or the truth
Hinduism, Budhaism or any other religion and their founders can never be the way.

Abraham was not a prophet of Judaism. Abraham knew nothing of the details of what was to come. He simply knew of God making him a promise to give the land to his descendants.

is that so?
Just like that.

Abraham was a mere man who pleased God so, that God decided to use Him as root in both agreements. God first made the promise to Abraham, a promise He reiterated to Isaac, and then Jacob, and so on.

Is Jesus Christ not also descended from the same line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
I need to be honest here as I fail to see where you are going with the discussion at this point. What I said of both covenants both running concurrently to this point in time has not changed and will never change, according to God Himself.

you should understand every covenant come with a purpose God don't initiate a covenant with a man without any reason.
When the purpose of one covenant is achieved God terminate it and pave way for a new covenant so that his new plan will be materialize.

P.S. Unless you believe the God of the Bible to be a celestial schitzophrenic of sorts, you would know that He could not have founded Islam.

you are right!
Afterall, Jesus covenant where we belong is the last for now.
But that doesn't mean God is against Islam.
Any religion that promote the law God will stand by it.

paxonel:
are you for real?
It seems you were converted recently from another religion into Christianity

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Again, John the Baptist was prophet under the Old Covenant, and not the New Covenant. He lived and died according to God's Old's covenant.

Kobojunkie:
Again, John the Baptist was prophet under the Old Covenant, and not the New Covenant. He lived and died according to God's Old's covenant.

no!
He was neither a prophet of the old covenant nor that of the new covenant. He was somewhere inbetween.
He was an intermiate prophet between the old covenant and the new covenant who was sent to the Jews to bear witness of Christ in order to pave way for the new covenant. John 1:8.
He was never for the old covenant, rather the old covenant and it prophets(the scribes and Pharisees) were expected to believe him and not the other way round. Matthew 21:25.
Even John the Baptist followers were later baptized by Paul into Christianity after his death. Act 19:3-5

If Paul had not baptized them into Christianity today, we will still have another religion known as the religion of John the Baptist which would have been different from Judaism and Christianity.

Kobojunkie:
At this point, I am speechless! Obviously this is another case of language comprehension problems that I honestly don't ever want to have to deal with again. Since you seem to want to win this so much that you are willing to overlook what is written to score, I will say you can have it, abeg!
I want to at this point move on to discussing with those who are at least able to read please! Thanks for your time!

I will ignore your uncouth response.

You only needed to see that there is absolutely no verse that SEEMS to support your point. I showed a few already. All you needed was to show one that SEEMS to condemn alter calls.

If you were so language-smart, you should have seen that your argument isn't in congruence with scripture.

Calm down, go over the dialogue again, learn, and have a great Sunday.

paxonel:
no!
He was neither a prophet of the old covenant nor that of the new covenant. He was somewhere inbetween.
He was an intermiate prophet between the old covenant and the new covenant who was sent to the Jews to bear witness of Christ in order to pave way for the new covenant. John 1:8.
He was never for the old covenant, rather the old covenant and it prophets(the scribes and Pharisees) were expected to believe him and not the other way round. Matthew 21:25.
Even John the Baptist followers were later baptized by Paul into Christianity after his death. Act 19:3-5

If Paul had not baptized them into Christianity today, we will still have another religion known as the religion of John the Baptist which would have been different from Judaism and Christianity.

I am confused. He was neither a prophet of the old covenant nor of the new covenant. How did you arrive at this claim?

John was a Nazarite, according to the Old Covenant (not the New) and he lived as one till the time of His death. He lived according to the Old Covenant, even after His encounter with Jesus Christ. He was a messenger from among the people, sent to deliver God's message to the people as described in the book of Malachi. There is no record of John ever becoming a follower of Jesus Christ till His death. So, how did you manage to put him in-between the two covenants?

Kobojunkie:
I am confused. He was neither a prophet of the old covenant nor of the new covenant. How did you arrive at this claim?

John was a Nazarite, according to the Old Covenant (not the New) and he lived as one till the time of His death. He lived according to the Old Covenant, even after His encounter with Jesus Christ. He was a messenger from among the people, sent to deliver God's message to the people as described in the book of Malachi. There is no record of John ever becoming a follower of Jesus Christ till His death. So, how did you manage to put him in-between the two covenants?

I wanted to explain further and i discover that there is no point
Let's leave it there

No