Well said Alheri well said

Or do i say its a male thing cos all the guys are getting worked up over nothing, abi what do u think

@madam
you we gladly agree with me that, not all christian celebrate Christmas, and again christmas is not found in the bible, I my self do not celebrate christmas, and i found it insignificant to me, when i was a kid i celebrated it, but later when i knew the truth about it origin i have deviated from it.

Does the average Muslim know that he is worshipping a moon god? No. Does he know why the crescent moon symbol sits on top of his mosque? No. Is he shocked and perhaps angered at these facts of history? Yes. But can mere denial or angry threats refute the fact that Islam is nothing more than a modern version of the ancient religion of the moon god Allah? No.


The average Muslim has been kept in the dark by the Mullahs and Imams who would lose their power if the truth ever got out.

charlisco:


@madam


The average Muslim has been kept in the dark by the Mullahs and Imams who would lose their power if the truth ever got out.

Charlisco Pls! Charlisco, I think u are going too far

What is i am going to far? Prove me wrong instead of threaten me. Tell me those stuff are not true, with prove and explanation from you, i will be glad to be well informed by you

Sweetheart i would not prove anything to you because i can't,  I don't even know if what u are saying is true,  But u sound like u are in a battlefield

Anyway that really is your headache not mine

Have a lovely weekend

this guy talking about jeep or nissan is trying to complicate matters here or what ever he is talking.

it's a simple thing we all talking about here, if you dont no about thing, the internet is there for research, , they are thousand of language all over the world and ppl refer to God in many ways, for instance i speak yoruba and the way i refer to God is different from the guy who comes from igbo land and same from round the way. the english ppl refer to God as God, the musliem refer to God as Allah and many language refer to God at their respective language, the reason why most christian are confuse is probaly somebody is not telling the truth some where, the bible is written in english and that is why most ppl think it's english that has been the language ppl speak since God started creating the world, which is not so,

the only Quran is written in arabic and there, God is refer to as Allah, period!!! take it or leave it,

@Bolaji4349,

Bolaji4349:

the reason why most christian are confuse is probaly somebody is not telling the truth some where, the bible is written in english and that is why most people think it's english that has been the language people speak since God started creating the world, which is not so,

Just thot U might know - the Bible was written in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It has been translated into many languages including English. At least we can't be confused about that.

Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God, so Allah and God cant be the same.

Allah in the Qur'an is not the same as God in the Bible. The two faiths may share a lot in common about their deity of worship, such as that they are monotheistic, and the Creator, Almighty God who has neither beginning nor end; etc.

However, they are very distinguished from each other, an example being that Allah is never referred to as "Father" or as having a Son; while in the Bible, God is the divine Father (not human father), and Jesus Christ is the divine Son. It is this very fundamental issue that separates these two religions, besides other tenets of belief in them.

Allah and God are revered in the same context but they are definitely not the same since there are different ways of getting to him in both religions

click here to get inform what what muslim and non muslim say about them self and each other

well i dont know,all i know thire is only one god

pls remove it as early said simply cos some pple are not getting the topic. let me quickly add that allah is the same thing as god.

i believe there is a creator, that creator is a supreme being, that supreme being is God,

most religions acknowledge there is a supreme being, but they chose other ways to the supreme being,

i chose Jesus Christ,

, NO!! ALLAH and JEHOVAH are different, the latter is not the father of christ, lets leave it at that!!

Allah n God r not d same!!! bcuz, if u go 2 d qoran, u would find things which d muslims say it is alright to do in d face of Allah, mean while in d Bible, if d christians do this things, it is against the rule of God: so if Allah n God have different rules then they r not d same person!!!

Christians belive Jesus 2 b d son of God, but d muslims don't teach or belive that Jesus is d Son of Allah : So once again, Allah n God r not d same!!!!
Conclusion: d muslims r just 2 blind letting there false leaders ( who all they know is violence) lead them astray n 2 nothing!!!!!!
Don't even compare Allah 2 God!!!!! Allah dosent exist!!!!!!baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

As far as language goes, I believe the Arabic word for "God" is "Allah" (although I'm not a speaker of Arabic).

However, when Arabic-speaking Christians address God as "Allah", it is only as a matter of language and nothing suggesting the possibility of the deity worshipped in Islam.

When we seek to understand the identities of the deities in either religions, one can't miss the point that Islam worships a deity far removed from and different than the One worshipped in Judaism and Christianity.

There are other faiths who use similar appellations to address the qualities of "God" - and on the surface you would think they sound "Christian." However, the fact that the Qur'an disparages Jews and Christians in particular more than any other religion or faith is testimony to the fact that Muhammad was antagonistic to the God of the Biblical faiths.

The Allah worshipped in Islam is not the LORD God of Israel who in the New Testament is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

And the people said, AMEN!!!

donnie:

And the people said, AMEN!!!

man----LoL!

Allah and God are not the same. Because God sent his son into the world to die for our sins, I dont think Allah did that. Moreso, my Jesus Christ is not a servant rather a son of the Holy Living God. so allah and God are not the same.

Madam Syrup i think you need to know more about the nicene creed before you start talking ,

[td]The Allah worshipped in Islam is not the LORD God of Israel who in the New Testament is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. [/td]

Who is the Lord God of Israel you are talking about? the one crucified by the Jews? So the Jews killed their own Gods,

[tr]who in the New Testament is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ[/tr]

No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

drbelloim:

Madam Syrup i think you need to know more about the nicene creed before you start talking

Wetin be the nicene creed that you hardly know yourself?

drbelloim:

No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

See how you're falling over yourself. If the Jews believe in the NT, how do you explain the fact that they didn't all convert to Christianity wholesale?

drbelloim:

Madam Syrup i think you need to know more about the nicene creed before you start talking ,

No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

I seem to disagree with your position that the followers of the Jewish religion believe in the New Testament. If they did they would be Christians.

@stimulus

I dey with on the Jews/New Testament one.

Heres some info on the Nicene ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:

@stimulus

I dey with on the Jews/New Testament one.

Heres some info on the Nicene ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene

Thanks for the link. I just wonder that when people make reference to the Nicene Creed/Council as a bastion against the Christian doctrine of deity of Jesus Christ, they often forget that no one in that 4th century Council wrote any part of the 1st Century NT. John 1:1 was penned by the apostle John long before the Nicene Council was convened.

Abdkabir
thanx for the comment,

I seem to disagree with your position that the followers of the Jewish religion believe in the New Testament. If they did they would be Christians.

I am in no way intending to suggest in any way that the Jews indeed believed in the NT, they wrote it perhaps , probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe, as no one relly know who wrote the biblical text as we have it today) but for sure the Jews do not believe in it.
the Jews explicitly believe in MONOTHEISM, just as the muslims, unlike the trinitarians who fell into the The Filioque controversy. christianity in no way follows the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled. further more it has been reported to be an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian. Father is greater than he is nullifies it all.

@drbelloim,

It's pretty simple to point out your inconsistencies:

drbelloim:

No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

. . . then:

drbelloim:

I am in no way intending to suggest in any way that the Jews indeed believed in the NT, they wrote it perhap ,  probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe, as no one relly know who wrote the biblical text as we have it today) but for sure the Jews do not believe in it.

This is classic Islamic guesses pandered as 'apologetics'. You're not even sure which is which, and then you had to betray your weak premise with "perhap ,  probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe. . ." So, your propaganda needs a bit more polish to make it shine; but so far it hasn't worked in your favour.

Besides, it is clear that your inference of "no one relly know who wrote the biblical text" is simply a denial. The Gospels are named after the authors; and because this is embarrasing for Muslims to admit, they push the idea that no one could be certain of the authors of the NT.

drbelloim:

the Jews explicitly believe in MONOTHEISM, just as the muslims, unlike the trinitarians who fell into the The Filioque controversy. christianity in no way follows the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled. further more it has been reported to be an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian. Father is greater than he is nullifies it all.

The very first chapter of Genesis was not written by Tertullian, and there we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (ch. 1:26). The Jewish concept of monotheism may be somewhat different from what many people interprete it to be. What is even more to the point is that Muslim monotheism is very different from that of Christian and Judaic understanding. At best, the monotheism in Islam is NOT strictly what many Muslims are made to believe.

drbelloim:

the Jews explicitly believe in MONOTHEISM, just as the muslims, unlike the trinitarians who fell into the The Filioque controversy. christianity in no way follows the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled. further more it has been reported to be an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian. Father is greater than he is nullifies it all.

The jewish idea of monotheism is CLEARLY distinct from that of the muslims.
- Of what importance is the islamic theory of monotheism? Sango worshippers explicitly believe in monotheism and so do the Ifa priests. Does monotheism automatically qualify one for heaven?

HI,

It's pretty simple to point out your inconsistencies:

there are no inconsistencies in wat i said , u simply took me retorics for real, ur error!, now i believe u know wa i meant.

This is classic Islamic guesses pandered as 'apologetics'. You're not even sure which is which, and then you had to betray your weak premise with "perhap , probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe. . ." So, your propaganda needs a bit more polish to make it shine; but so far it hasn't worked in your favour.

there is no such term as islamic guessses,


Besides, it is clear

that your inference of "no one relly know who wrote the biblical text" is simply a denial. The Gospels are named after the authors; and because this is embarrasing for Muslims to admit, they push the idea that no one could be certain of the authors of the NT.

this is no inference but facts, I did not invent the apocrypha or the millions of errors exitnig by comparative analysis of the gospels ( this not for this thread though) , do consider the following just in brief,

Consider the OT inconsistencies such as Moses describing his own death and a list of Edomite kings that lived long after his death, may be it was inspired while ha was writing the books huh? There are many contradictory texts found in the first five books. Duet 34:5 tells of Moses death, Some stories are told twice with conflicting details such as: Geneses 6:19 vs Genesis 7:2 (a different count of animals entering Noah’s ark); or Genesis 1: 25-27 vs Genesis 2: 18-19 (a different account as to order of the creation of humans and animals); or Genesis 1:27 vs. Genesis 2:18-22 (whether men and women were simultaneously created or created at different times). perhaps as you put it even Moses was not sure. you must have heard of the doublets, Tradition says that Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, the tax collector, and the Book of John by John the Beloved. Mark was written by an associate of Peter while Luke by a traveling companion to Paul. It is felt that Mark was the first to be written in about 65 AD, followed by Luke and Matthew in 80 - 85 AD. John was written around 90 - 95 AD. The authors, however, never identify themselves and their names were later added by scribes. further, Mark was the first gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from it. now as for some of the texts in these books, no one really knows their sources so they are referred to by the Latin Quelle ( which means unknown), or simply Q. Now by the 2nd Century, the Four Gospels were circulating independently of one another: Rome had Mark, Antioch had Matthew, Athens had Luke, and Ephesus had John. The Roman patriarch Marcion was a catalyst in drawing up a list of accepted scripture. He was very anti-Jewish, however, and anything relating to Jews was edited out of his list, including the entire Old Testament. He felt that the Jewish God was different from the Christian God. The Apocrypha was written :oby Alexandrian Greeks (the Septuagint Manuscripts) and many Jews[b] kept it [/b] out of their 70 AD Hebrew Bible because they were written too late and were in Greek. A consensus became imperative when Constantine commissioned to have 50 copies of Christian scripture published as a result of the Nicaene Conference in 325 AD.

The very first chapter of Genesis was not written by Tertullian, and there we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (ch. 1:26).

I beileve here u arelaying emphasis on the plural, if so then understand that PLURALITY in that context has nothing to do with trinity, Alot of languages still use plural instead of singular as a sign of respect or power. its a pity this is not so in English ur mother tongue

The Jewish concept of monotheism may be somewhat different from what many people interprete it to be

So the Jewish concept of monotheism is - for there are 3 that are witnessed in heaven rite? because thy wrote it as such!?

What is even more to the point is that Muslim monotheism is very different from that of Christian and Judaic understanding.

As for that I think u need to explain to the audience what is the christain concept of monotheism, as for the Jewish , leave them alone as they do not believe your ways.

At best, the monotheism in Islam is NOT strictly what many Muslims

So what do the Muslims understand by that , according to you?

@stimulus

U will marvel @ how Faith, the Destiny of Man and the world around us fascinates me. I can tell u i've been mostly reading or finding info on religion since i wrote that post till n now.and its late already.

As regards the Nicene issue,

After reading so many things from, the council of nicea, Athanasius, Arius,Origenes, intermingling political and religious issues, et al (Many Thanks to Wikipedia). I guess it can be safe to say the councils, (Nicea et al) played a role in defining what we call the new testament today (A[i]s such, prior to cononization, there could have been ambiguity as regards the authenticity of some gospels[/i]). As you would agree with me, there were discrepancies as to which Gospel was apocryphal or not among pundits of early chistianity. A case wherein there was diverse opinion is d following:

^{Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now canonical Gospels as divinely-inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel}.

more details under the Irenaeaeus asserts divine inspiration of canon section. @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus.

From what i have found, the use of a common set of NT texts could be traced from the time of Athanasius. By then there was considerable/serious work towards compilation and some kind of standardization:

<sup>Athanasius is also the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. A milestone in the evolution of the canon of New Testament books is his Easter letter from Alexandria, written in 367, usually referred to as his 39th Festal Letter. Pope Damasus, the Bishop of Rome in 382, promulgated a list of books which contained a New Testament canon identical to that of Athanasius. A synod in Hippone in 393 repeated Athansius' and Damasus' New Testament list (without the Epistle to the Hebrews), and a synod in Carthage in 397 repeated Athanasius' and Damasus' complete New Testament list.

Scholars have debated whether Athanasius' list in 367 was the basis for the later lists. Because Athanasius' canon is the closest canon of any of the Church Fathers to the canon used by Protestant churches today many Protestants point to Athanasius as the father of the canon. They are identical except that Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the apocrypha along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.[17] See the article, Biblical canon, for more details.</sup>

More info @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius.

As regards the authorship of "John", heres an info i read:


<sup>Authorship

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view.

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20-25 contains possibly autobiographical information. Conservative scholars generally assume I (v. 25), the disciple (v. 24) and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple, v. 20) are the same person;[5][6] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[7] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that while the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[8][9]

Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[10] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[11] Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus.

Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[12]

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[13] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).</sup>


More details @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship


Please the info i have provided is in no way to smear christianty but to discuss the issue using a source(wikipedia) i assume is relatively impartial to religious issues considering its critical and scientific stance.

Cheers.

abdkabir
tnx 4 thepoints