₦airaland Forum

Please, guys. Una no dey look before asking questions?

@adeniyidru, I think your questions have been answered in most of bari_kade's and naijacutee's posts. Just look at the post above yours for example.

I have also benefitted so much in my quiet reading of this topic.

trini_girl:
well, i expected such a reponse. let me just say that jealousy is an instinct to protect what is yours so im not jealous. just making an observation after reading many threads here over a long period of time.

I know - and my observations, too. Regards.

abdkabir:
The Defence of the Cross! Oh i love the Spirit.

. . . Ehm, since when have Muslims started loving the Cross? Thank God for you O!

trini_girl:
_{rolls eyes}
you people should really ease up on the syrup shahan worship. it's not healthy. enough back patting and awestruck responses here to make her a goddess. next thing I'll be seeing a thread on someone suggesting giving her a tenth of their income every month.

here's an idea for you syrup shahan devotees. study the Word for yourselves instead of taking every long drawn out post shahan syrup submits as gospel (so to speak)

Take style talk true: small jealousy dey inside that post!
Me sef, I jealous small. But I can excuse myself for having been away for a looong while - on 'special assignment.' All the same, well done shahan!

Hi @kmcutez,

kmcutez:
This makes a lot of sense to me because i cannot equate the God who calls himself love, and by the way whom I serve, to a sadistic God that will allow his creation to suffer forever.

[center]==Revelation 20:10==
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.[/center]

[center]==Romans 11:22==
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.[/center]

@syrup,

syrup:
@babs787,

Your claim here is blatantly dishonest. In the first place, babyosisi was pointing out the issue about Muslim conversion to Christianity and wanted your comments on a link she recommended. Instead of responding thereto, you produced links that had to do with genocide and nothing about conversion. Just in case you forgot, there are far more links available on the net about killings perpetrated by Muslims than you can find in connection with Christians. And for all that, the case of perpetrated killings weighs far more heavily on Islam and Muslims.

The links you gave did not infer that the genocide in Rwanda was perpetrated by Christians.

(a) First link was about a demand for apology from the Catholic Church for not doing enough to stop the killings.

(b) In the second link, a Catholic priest and a nun were convicted for their alleged roles in the genocide. However, it does not report that the 761,000 who were to stand trial for their alleged roles in the murders were all Christians; or that Christians were responsible for the genocide in the first place.

(c) The third link is a BBC report of the same case in the second link; and again it does not state that Christians were responsible for the killings.

An honest look at the Rwandan genocide leads to the understanding that it was rather politically motivated and based on age-old ethnic tensions between Tutsis and Hutus. The same BBC you sourced in your claim has a report titled "Rwanda: How the genocide happened" and you can have a peep and understand the issues from an informed perspective.

Real converts from Islam to Christianity are not cowards - that is why they openly share their experiences. Only Muslims who are uncomfortable with the reality of such conversions refer to it as "deceiving people". Besides, unless you want to purposely make false claims, it is very clear that Muslims broadcast their converts' stories - both on Nairaland and in other Muslim websites.

For example, kismat as a muslim was very quick to broadcast: Harvard Educated Minister Converts to Islam (a thread on the Nairaland Forum). The Minister in question was from a United Methodist Church. Another Muslim (islampride) reposted another report of 'Why British Women Are Turning To Islam' and several paragraphs down noted that "Many had previously been practicing Christians." Yet, a Muslim website TURNTOISLAM.com carries a conversion story of Jermaine Jackson (Michael Jackson's brother) and mentions "his reasons for leaving Christianity and becoming Muslim."

There are several hundred examples of Muslims broadcasting their converts' stories - and equally "deceiving people" as you put it. Even though you'd have wished it otherwise, at least be honest enough to acknowledge that your claims are quite false.

That was a brilliant rejoinder. Bless up.

Hi @syrup,

NB: please note that on clicking the link above you will be directed to an error page with message: "Oops! Page Not Found!" I asked a friend about this and he said that Muslim websites are not often honest enough to reveal truth. Consequently, in order to get to the page in question, he advised the follow:

Your friend may not be wrong, but here's something that might be of help in resolving this issue.

Some weblog sites are configured such that they change some entries or words you post on them. For example, if you type "U R" as one word without spaces between, you would be surprised to read it as "YOUR".

To solve the problem of the error page, please note that one letter in the URL you recommended has been changed when posting on this Forum, and that is why you keep getting the error page returned. Here is the difference:

           http://www.usc.edu/debt/MSA/quran/

The highlighted letters ('debt') is the error. Please change the letter 'b' to 'p' when pasting into your browser; so that instead of 'debt' you have the short form of 'department' ('de p t' without spaces). Then follow the remaining instructions advised by your friend.

I hope this would help.

Regards.



Hi @babs787,

I've been busy in the past weeks and haven't had time to keep up the discussions. When I do have the time, I'll look into some of your rejoinders. Even so, I don't think your questions make any sense. Follow the instructions carefully, and you will find the website by syrup accessible.

Cheers.

davidylan:
My own question: what happens to those who were taught chemistry by a bad teacher and thus could not understand the fundamentals? should they also fail their exams?

Heheheheheee!! Una no go kill me with laughter!

This simplistic "having-just-only-heard-the-Gospel-but-did-not-believe" argument is an empty drum. What happens to those who heard several times and yet still did not believe?

mrmayor:
Babs787,

Do the decent thing by providing the source of aguments,its really naughty making US the honourable members of this forum assume that your post are your idea.
- - -
Source. http://michaellee.modernwriters.org/viewtopic.php?p=5186&sid=24f0664dbd72e181e15ebe9757355852

Well, you finally got a source for that. I've read most of his blabs on other weblogs but could not remember the URLs. To plagiarise articles from other websites and treat them as his own ideas is not only dishonest - it is also infantile.

babyosisi:
This is a verse of the Koran that the Muslims are not in any hurry to quote.
I strongly believe Muhammad and his allah forgot to abrogate this one.

3:55 "Behold! Allah said: O Jesus! I will take thee And raise thee to Myself And clear thee (of the falsehoods) Of those who blaspheme; I will make those Who follow thee superior To those who reject faith, To the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, And I will judge Between you of the matters wherein ye dispute

let blabs give us the Altaquiyyah on this one.

I'm just waiting on his taqiyya on that one.

BTW @babs787, can you please tell us which branch/sect of Islam you adhere to; and what Christian denomination you formerly belonged when you were a Christian?

Thanks.

babyosisi:
You claim to have been a 'Christian',what church did you attend please?

That was just a shakara claim that didn't go anywhere. From his round-about arguments, any Christian will know that he never was one but just simply quoting verses here and there.

@Lalas,

The "Mother-of-God" theory has been laid to rest already, and your logic has been settled as ineffective.

Is Jesus the Lamb of God? If yes, then Mary is the Mother of Lamb - no two-ways around it. Also, she could be called "Mother of Lion" by the same logic.

The simple premise here is what does Scripture actually call her? Is there a verse - just one - where Mary is called "Mother of God"??

Looking at it from another perspective: so many people debate the issue of 'Who is Jesus'. Some who see Him only as a Man and nothing more will try to refute His deity. But as Christians, we can simply point them to Scripture where His deity is declared - and there several quite explicit on that.

The same applies in the "Mother of God" debate. Is there a verse where Mary is explicitly called Mother of God? If none, does the logic apply at all?

The only reason why people want to force this idea is because it forms the basis for Mary-worship. As such, she is regarded as co-Redemptrix (simple English: co-Redeemer).

God existed before Mary; and she could not be the "Mother" of Him who is her Creator. Tp push this logic would only mean that she existed before GOD! And because that is a convoluted and impossible position, she is therefore never called "Mother of God."

@babs787,

babs787:
Honestly, I have given up on both of you but you still remain my friends .

Even though I am sometimes a rascal when debating issues with you, it's heart-warming that you took my joke lightly and still maintain our friendship.

babs787:
I have explained myself, you only need to go over the thread. Hey wait, the issue of jacob

Heb. 11:21 - "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

So you don't know that muslims too can worship God when not feeling fine by leaning on something to aid support.

Sorry for me - I didn't know that, as I was never a Muslim. Anyhow, when you carefully read that verse again, you'll find it was not because Jacob was "not feeeling fine" that leaned on his staff.

babs787:
Posted by 4 get me
"If you dey pass on and hear person talk wetin concern you, pay attention before them do you damage!"

Which one be your own? How e take concern you if them dey fight for other compound? Se na your compound.

Another talk say, person no dey them im house come see trouble.

Agreed - the compound no be my own. Shébi na pass I dey pass jeje?? I hear sontin wey tingle my attention, na im I branch to greet una!

babs787:
Take care friends till we meet again.

Bo, enjoy plenty o jare.

@babs787,

babs787:
@batu, 4 get me and pataki,

Posted by batu
[b]Not only so, this is how the Qur'an describes Jews and Christians at some point in Muhammad's theology (Sura 5 vs.82):

1. Jews are enemies
"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans;"[/b]

No emphasis on christians here

Muhammad did not wait for your emphasis before hating Jews and Christians.

babs787:
Posted by batu
2. Christians are devoted men of learning and not arrogant.

Just like my brother backslider

Posted by batu
"and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Behind this cavalier, what was Muhammad's real reaction to the "people of the Book"?

Still no where that says christians should be killed

Another al-taqiyya. We know that the killing of Christians is an entrenched tenet of Islam - and I have offered the case of the Afghani Muslim convert to Christianity whose death was being sought by Muslims.

babs787:
Posted by batu
1. Both Jews and Christians are regarded as enemies (Sura 5 vs.51)

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Now add to these the hatred quoted earlier that you're referring to about the slaying of non-Muslims. My question still remains: at whatever point in Muhammad's career, why did he hate Jews and Christians so much that even the Qur'an could not conceal this hatred?

Brothers. your problem is only comprehension. The above verse means that muslims should not take jews as Auliyah (protector, helpers) and not probably what you might be thinking

We didn't have to think anything - we only had to watch the interpretation of that verse manifested in the hatred Muslims have expressed against the Jews - so much so that Muhammad referred to them as pigs.

@lysaa,

lysaa:
I do not owe u any explanation what i have or haven't done and I didn't say my pastor is guilty so?

Right. I didn't demand an explanation either; just wanted to know what you have done in the matter while asking others to write pastor Chris emails.

lysaa:
The church has passed that level long ago, we are in a new era

What level? Your replies are only helping to fuel the suspicion that stolen money is welcome in LoveWorld; otherwise such statements would not be coming from you with respect to this matter.

@babs787,

babs787:
ABROGATION

It has been read that the reason for the abrogated verses in the Quran has been given based on the verses supporting abrogation.

But going through the bible, it becomes clear that omnipotent and omniscient God did make mistakes and repented. This means that the God did not know his own actions and the outcomes of the actions.

Remember also that you are describing the "God" in the Qur'an whom Muhammad called "Allah" and claimed he revealed the Torah to Moses. So, in effect, Allah was the one who made mistakes and was fluctuating between opinions when revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad. That is why Muslims have ever been looking for loopholes in the Bible to explain away the clear abrogations of Qur'anic verses.

babs787:
Now for some fine examples.let us first start with Old Testament. In the story of Noah, it is mention that:

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. [Genesis 8:21]

He repented

Where in Genesis 8:21 did you read that God made a mistake??

babs787:
And in the story of Moses, we read

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [Exodus 32:14]

God repenting??

In Exodus 32:14, where did you read that God made a mistake?

babs787:
Posted by 4 get me
there were no abrogated verses in the Bible, as "Scripture cannot be broken" - John 10:35.

Lets see there if there are no abrogated verses in the bible

We all understand that abrogation means to annul, to abolish etc

Jesus said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

Meaning that he didnt come to make any abrogation abi.

Lets see if really the above statement is true

Abrogation Of Divorce

The best examples of Jesus abrogating parts of Old Testament law concern a number of statements recorded in the gospel according to Matthew. The most prominent of them would be the Law concerning Divorce.

In the Old Testament we find the following law concerning divorce:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (Deutronomy 24:1-2)

Now without going into the minute of this particular law of divorce, one thing becomes immediately clear. Not only is divorce permitted by God, it is legal for her to remarry.

However in the time of Jesus, the rules of divorce seem to have taken a U-turn.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

Here Jesus abrogated the former permission to divorce according to the husband's displeasure and strictly allowed it under one condition - adultery. He even went so far as to legislate that divorcees were not permitted to remarry, clearly abrogating the former permission. But what is the reason given for this abrogation? Had God changed His mind? Is this evidence of God not being omniscient? Or more importantly, is this evidence that in fact God was never the author of these laws?

Your dishonesty at play. Where did Jesus ever mention an abrogation of any verse of the Old Testament?

babs787:
Well Jesus himself explains:

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)

Jesus points to the fact that God designs laws that are suitable to the needs and exigencies of the time and audience.

Law Of Absolute Justice

In the book of Deteronomy:

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deutronomy 19:21)

Quite a harsh law of absolute justice that was necessary due to the conditions of Moses' age. But Jesus was inspired by God to reveal a softer code for the believers to practice in individual relationships. By abrogating the harshness of absolute justice, Jesus was inspired to encourage the believers to employ forgiveness and mercy. It is recorded he said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

It is a different story that many Christians do not practice what Jesus has told them to do.

Where did you read that Jesus was inspired to reveal a softer code?

babs787:
Law Of Oaths

We read:

If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth. (Deutronomy 23:21-23)

That is, it is permissible to make an oath for various reasons, however, the swearer must fulfil the oath he makes. In Jesus' time it became necessary for him to abrogate this permission so that the swearing of oaths became forbidden. In Matthew it is recorded:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37)

Where did you read that Jesus mentioned an abrogation of the Law?

babs787:
Jesus Abrogating His Own Commandments

Perhaps the clearest example of God inspiring Jesus to practice abrogation can be seen in the commissioning of his disciples. It is written in the New Testament that initially Jesus forbade his disciples from preaching to non-Jews. He restricted their activities and commanded them to avoid Gentiles. However, due to the change in circumstances and the completion of his earthly mission, Jesus abrogated this earlier law and made it not only permissible but obligatory for his disciples to reach out to a broader base.

A nice example of Jesus asking his disciples to preach the lost sheep of Israel is:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

This prohibition is reinforced by Jesus' own practice:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:22-24)

Even though because of his mercy Jesus healed the sick daughter, he made it clear that his mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Later on this was abrogated and Jesus commanded his disciples to reach out to all peoples. It is recorded he said:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Where did you read at all that Jesus was abrogating His own commandment?

babs787:
It is clear that the concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has been practiced by God for reasons known to him. What we know is that the laws governing the mankind (i.e., Shariah) changes according to the needs of the society. But the concept of monotheism (i.e., Tawheed) remains the same. The Creator knows very well that his creation, the humans, need time and discipline to grow and mature, He reveals commandments and practices that help them develop both as individuals and as members of society.

In Islam, abrogation of verses is clearly a tenet - and not one Muslim scholar is sure what verses are abrogated in the Qur'an. It is all a matter of convenience for whosoever, whensoever and whatsoever.

Just ferreting verses from the Bible to claim a so-called abrogation has not helped your drivel. The Bible never abrogates itself in any verse; and the Old Testament verses you quoted were not meant to be perpetuated. You also failed to understand the basis of the two covenants - the Old and the New. Both appertain to different settings, and one could not be confused for the other. Rather than "abrogation", Jesus came to FULFILL them.

Whereas in the case of the Qur'an, Muhammad's "Allah" was never sure of himself from the onset. First he reveals a verse, then annuls it with with another - and no one is certain which is which. Besides, any attempt to translate the Qur'an is seen as immediately ceasing to be the word of "Allah" and has become something else.

@Nella,

Nella:
Jesus Christ is God n Mary is his Mother!=Mary is d Mother of God!!

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God n Mary is His Mother!= Mary is d Mother of Lamb!!

Jesus Christ is the Passover n Mary is His Mother!= Mary is d Mother of Passover!!

Jesus Christ is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah n Mary is his Mother!= Mary is d Mother of Lion!!

Do you get the drift??


I Tim. 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

For the "Mother-of-God" theorists, whatever happened to the Humanity of Jesus?? Mary did not give birth to GOD but to the incarnate Son of God.

@babs787,

I am truly sorry to read your latest denials and pretences. Did you say you were once a Christian - and yet you don't know the basics of the Christian faith? Or was that just a mere claim of yours to win cheap appeal?

babs787:
I perused the bible but did not see where jesus said that

1.         He is the lord and personal saviour

Let me ask you babs787: was there anytime that Jesus said He was the Christ in the Qur'an?

This kind of argument is both tenuous and philistine . It is like someone looking for excuses to deny that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah on the premise that they could not find where He said verbatim He is the Christ. Indeed, He did not categorically say that He was the Christ - neither in the Bible nor in the Qur'an. But is that reason enough to deny that Jesus is indeed the Christ because you can't find Him saying so Himself?

To be sure, Jesus positively affirmed that He was and is the Christ by His words, teaching, and works (see John 17:3). In the same way, if you actually "perused" the Bible, you would have found loads of verses confirming Jesus' own declaration that He is indeed Lord and Saviour.

Jesus confirmed His Lordship to His disciples -

>> "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." (John 13:13)

>> "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14)

Jesus also confirmed that He is the Saviour of the world -

>> "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matt. 18:11)

>> "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:28)

>> "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17 - this was Jesus Himself speaking)

>> "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (John 10:9)

>> "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47)

babs787:
2.         I didn’t not see where he says that salvation can be got through his blood

This is how He declared salvation through His blood:

>> "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

>> "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

And when people listened to Him, what was their testimony? Here: "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (John 4:42)

babs787:
3.         I also learnt that jesus was neither killed nor crucified.

That is typical - a Muslim denial despite obvious statements. Jesus Himself affirmed His arrest, death by crucifixion, and resurrection. If He was not crucified or did not die, how come He spoke afterwards of His resurrection.

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. . . Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:25-27)

You either pretended not to have seen the evidence in the Bible, or having seen them you are struggling with the dilemma of the denials Muhammad made in the Qur'an.

babs787:
Since I have not seen all those, I beg you to let us leave false doctrines and face the truth which is Islam. Jesus said that “what shall it profit a man who gain the whole world and lose his soul”?

So, from where did you get that statement of Jesus to conveniently cover up your denials if you missed all the others after having "perused" the Bible??

The truth you are perennially denying is before you. Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, and no matter the number of times you deny it, He still is the Saviour, Lord and Christ.

@KAG,

Thanks for that article from tentmakers.

KAG:
Incidentally, AiG and ICR's John Morris are YEC's who actually believe in (the implausible) literal Naoh flood. While they've been lambasted in the past for perceived disingenuity, I feel they can't be faulted in this matter.

I don't know, but it's amazing that we share the same inference here about John Morris and crew on this one.

@KAG,

KAG:
There is an object on the location - in fact there are many objects on the location; however, the objects are all natural. To ask them to show there's no object on the site, is dishonest at best. Furthermore, if you read the Answers in Genesis link, for example, you'll see how they managed to conclude Wyatt's claims were lies.

I actually thought so myself - that to ask them to show there's no object on the site was a bit quizzical. But having tried to follow the argument, I came to understand that the challenge was put forward based on the claims earlier made by those skeptics that (a) there were no objects on the site; and (b) they have failed to identify what object was on that site.

Anyone can make allegations and accusations across the fence. Not that I'm in for Wyatt's claims. However, I am still wondering why the particular object actually located in question is yet to be identified if it was all a fraud. Or did I miss it out in following the article you recommended on Answers in Genesis?

@lysaa,

Pardon me, but what have you done on a personal level about this matter?

@KAG,

KAG:
". . . Where is the Ark of the Covenant?. . . There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah's Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data"

That is simply not true. The same people challenging the videos have been asked to go to the site to identify the object in question with only one goal - to declare that there is no such object on the location. But rather than do that, they came out with that terse claim that the video was false data. How they managed to conclude that is an on-going debate.

@babs787,

It is no wonder that you drum up claims of having been once a Christian, and yet sound so distant from Biblical teachings. I was going to ignore your request. However, I'll just humble myself and pay heed to my friend sitting beside me.

babs787:
@ 4 get me

Once again, I saw your new post.

Please try giving me the verses in full from your bible and tell me the version you are using. Also, tell me the reason for quoting Psalm 2v12 and Isaiah 9v6 and who they both refer to.

Isaiah 9:6 - KJV
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 9:6 - LITV
"For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

----------           -------------            -----------             ------------

Psalm 2:12 - KJV
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

LITV
"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Oh the blessings of all those who flee to Him for refuge!"


These are not the only versions of the English translations I use in my study; but they have been very helpful in as far as the original sense of the manuscripts are concerned. As you can see, both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 are pointing to the Messiah.

babs787:
I will respond to your questions but let me get where you are going. John 1v1 is well known but let me know the reason for the other two.

John 1:1 - KJV, EMTV & LITV
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The reason for the other two quoted above is simply to establish the fact for you that the Old Testement prophets knew that the Messiah is God Himself - and that the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a New Testament heresy as many Muslims are led to believe.

A second reason was to point out to you that Muhammad had no justification for denying what the Old Testements clearly referenced. These verses in both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 have never been altered - not even one time - before and after Muhammad was born. That is why I have asked once and again that Muslims who believe the dishonest denials of Muhammad should please tell us what the "original Psalms and Isaiah" say - word for word in their direct texts.

A third reason is to show you that there was a basis for Muhammad not having made reference to the prophet Isaiah or Zachariah - those prophets (besides others) clearly wrote about the deity of the Messiah who comes to redeem man.

babs787:
Answer my questions below

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

What verses are you referencing the word "beside" from? That's why I won't be gullible to just take your blank statements and address them willy-nilly.

babs787:
3. Why was trinity not preached among early prophets like Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc and if preached, let me have the verses from your bible (Old Testament)?

Depends on what you mean by "preached."

Moses recognized the Trinity right from Genesis when by inspiration he wrote: "And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen. 1:26).

Noah is not presented in the Bible as a writing prophet; but the God he knew was no different from the One Moses wrote about in the Law. Noah was simply asked to warn his generation of God's judgement that was to fall upon the ungodly world of his day - and he did precisely that. "And Noah did so, according to all that God commanded him, so he did" (Gen. 6:22).

Abraham recognized the one who spoke to Him as the very same One that Moses spoke about. The patriarch may not have known the LORD by His covenant name revealed to Moses (Exo. 6:3); but even so, the same God was often known as "LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel" (cf. I Kings 18:36 and Matt. 22:32). Abraham was not a preaching or writing prophet, as you may suppose.

Nevertheless, among the preaching and writing prophets of the Old Testament, the Trinity is clearly taught - as in the references earlier offered. This in no way mean that three "Gods" were being preached, and there are verses in the OT that clearly demonstrate this.

babs787:
Ponder on my questions and let me have your response.If you do say my questions above do not need response so also yours will be treated despite the fact that I have answers for you.

I hope you would be happy to see my response above.

By the way, if on the other hand, Muhammad is said to have taught mono[/b]theism, how many deities were speaking with plural pronouns ([b]WE, US, and OUR) in the Qur'an in precisely the same position as Allah? When we read "We created man" in the Qur'an, to whom does the ""WE" refer - and is that not disguised [b]poly[/b]theism? How do you defend a "monotheism" of the "Allah" in the Qur'an when clearly there are several of them?

babs787:
Now you said Abraham and Moses were from the same people, can you explain that please?

They belong to the same covenant lineage known as the Jews.

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:
@ 4get_me,
Thanks a lot there for the explanation. Wanted him to make the error, which he actually did there.
God bless you greatly for those scriptures.

I saw this earlier but was rushing off for something. No vex. God bless you more, and my prayers for babs787 to come to terms with his eristic arguments.



@Diplenty,

Diplenty:
I want to believe this thread was spawned by a Muslim for Muslims why all the side talks

@ Mukina,
My village people say: its the people you trade with that you haggle with not third parties

They equally say: One who is at the centre of attention does not watch others

So ride on!!

There's a saying among my villa people as well: "If you dey pass on and hear person talk wetin concern you, pay attention before them do you damage!"

It is for that reason I don't go to the thread: "Muslims: What Did You Learn In Islam Recently?" I just pass my own jeje. But in Islam Talk thread, I dey pass when one of these gentlemen mention wetin concern us - that explains my presence here, before he do me damage!

@Oluchia,

Thanks for your very frank input - much appreciated. Blessings.

TV01:
Join 4get_me on the challenger circuit   .

Hehehe. . .

I haven't even set forth any challenges as yet; and I'm already listed on "challenger circuit."

mrpataki:
This is serious turning the teachings and Word of God into Tennis game!

Study to show thyself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Not turning it to a game of serve I serve.

I don't really have any problems with people using descriptive language to put forward their discussions. I think the Bible in some instances used proverbial sporting language to exhort us. For instance, in Heb. 12:1 -

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us."

However, I only tried to point out that we should be careful in this 'tennis' court so that we do not inadvertently deny what the Scriptures categorically teaches as regards the term "man of God." I was neither the umpire nor a contestant - and the next I knew was the booing out of court!

@trini_girl,

I like that word - "sontin!" E don tay wey I hear correct people use am!

Anyway, we all know babs787 by now. If he was not "waiting"; then it is the cry that his questions have been "ignored!" Beyond that, then it is either denials. . . or he simply refuses to read, so that he could launch the attack against others of "not answering questions." The guy no dey tire when it comes to stuff like that.

But this one. . .

trini_girl:
i am not even tempered like shahan.

. . . I don't understand. I don't know if shahan is "tempered"; although I can't argue against the fact that she's a very intelligent lady. Need I add: you too.

@batu,

batu:
@4getme,
The answer to your question might not be far fetched. Muhammed hate the Jews and Christians most likely because they told him he is a confused man with his new brand of polytheism potrayed as monotheism. History records that Muhammed tried to present his new ideology of Islam to the Jews and Christians but he was rejected as a prophet and his ideology of islam was also rejected. As a proud nationalistic arab, his anger at the rejection is understandable.

Probably the first part you quoted above was the revelation he "received" when he was trying to woo the Arab Christians into Islam; but upon his rejection, he "received" the revelation not to keep them as friends and/or to kill them all. How convenient! Very much like a sulking little child when his friends refused to play with him. Sallam

I feel you; and kai! - I just bit my finger that you anticipated babs787 on this one. I had hoped that he would come back again and try to make more denials - only then would I have presented the issue you posted to him, so that any reader following our discussions would see how easy it is for babs787 to pretend issues.

Anyhow, you did well all the same in helping out here. I register my thanks.

@babs787,

babs787:
Do we those agree. Though in one Quran, you may see a word being used differently from another (synonyms) Quran but will still give you the same meaning.

Do we apply the same to the above?

In this roundabout often repeated issue of yours, bari_kade has roundly laid the matter to rest. He conclusively pointed out the issues and showed the circumstances in the narratives of the Gospels; even pointing out your error in mixing up the timeline of Peter's denials. The Gospels clearly bear out the same meaning, and the seeming difficulty is simply as a result of confusing the perspectives from which the writers penned their accounts.

As examples, you find the human ancestry of Jesus Christ traced in both Matthew and Luke - and yet with different perspectives. Matthew traces His genealogy back to Ab[/b]raham as the patriarch of the [b]covenant people; while Luke traces it back to Ad[/b]am as the head of the [b]created who seek God - and as such demonstrating Christ's true Humanity.

Mark and John did not trace His genealogy except making references to His family lineage as a true Jew. In the former, Jesus is presented as the divine Servant who perfects the will of God; while John presents His true Person as God Himself who comes to redeem man.

It is in the same character that the Old Testament prophets variously describe the Person, work and events surrounding the Messiah. David called Him "the Son" (Psalm 2:12); Isaiah says His name shall be called "the mighty God" (Isa. 9:6); Jeremiah however intones that He shall be called "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jer. 23:6).

Shall we then say that the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah contradicted each other as to the name by which the Messiah is called? Anyone who hasn't studied Biblical language will be quick to say "yes." However, what the prophets wrote about Him are to be understood as "INCLUSIVE" rather than contradictory.

In just the same way, the Gospels beautifully harmonise between themselves; and only careless souls will see contradictions in them out of ignorance of the perspectives from which the writers penned down the accounts.

However, when it comes to the Qur'an, it is actually pitiful and sad indeed that the deity there reveals a verse and then "abrogates" it. That is as much as saying that the Qur'an was neither inspired by the true God whose Word remains unabrogated; nor was the Qur'an perfect as is claimed by Muslims. Abrogating any verse renders the rest completely untrustworthy of a divine Revelation; because that simply means that the Qur'an has been editted, re-editted, cancelled (or revoked - basic meaning of abrogate) in some places, and incomplete as earlier Muslims testify.

It is interesting to note also that the Qur'an categorically states that the Gospel was given to Jesus Christ. Please babs787, without much ado, can you present to us that original Gospel that the Qur'an claims the "Allah" of Islam revealed? What exactly does it say and how does it differ from John 1:1 and Mark 1:1?? Is the Injil in the Qur'an part of the "abrogated verses" of Muhammad's "Allah"?

@Backslider,

you said

Brother, another thing you don't know is that, the verses were not arranged according to how they were revealed.

Brother it is either !!!!! you are purposely lying!!!!! or you have forgotten Go back to what you said about Abrogation and you Quoted The Surat to suport it

Although there are many things that babs787 does that are way out of proportion, I don't think he was "purposely lying" in that statement. I may have missed the gist; but then it is true that the Suras of the Qur'an were not revealed in the chronological/chapter orders that appears in it today.

@babs787,

babs787:
I even challenged your brother to give me a verse that says 'christians' should be killed but rather he gave me verses on believers likewise your sister.

You've a fine reputation for seeking a particular phrase or word which you devise in order to feed your ignorance or denials against the Bible. It's easy: the verses from the Qur'an do not negate the established belief that Christians be killed. Not long ago in Afghanistan, the world witnessed how a Christian convert was being pursued around with threats of death - for being a Christian!

Not only so, this is how the Qur'an describes Jews and Christians at some point in Muhammad's theology (Sura 5 vs.82):

1. Jews are enemies

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans;"

2. Christians are devoted men of learning and not arrogant

"and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Behind this cavalier, what was Muhammad's real reaction to the "people of the Book"?

1. Both Jews and Christians are regarded as enemies (Sura 5 vs.51)

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Now add to these the hatred quoted earlier that you're referring to about the slaying of non-Muslims.  My question still remains: at whatever point in Muhammad's career, why did he hate Jews and Christians so much that even the Qur'an could not conceal this hatred?