₦airaland Forum

Bobbyaf:
I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

As you're an authority to your own morals and selfrighteousness and couldn't knock off the brewing quarrel, please yourself.

Bobbyaf:
Yet you are willing to accuse christians of legalism when in truth and in fact we are only trying to show you the importance of being obedient to God.

I'm not in the habit of arguing for the sake of it and I would rather you addressed issues than come off stating what is not true. I did not "accuse christians of legalism", and no where did I advocate disobedience to God. You could as well say that you felt accused by your own legalism, which is a different thing from reading that into my post.

I've dealt with the texts you quoted from Isaiah in another thread - The Sabbath - What Day Is This?, and you'll find some of the texts in Acts treated there as well. Find them here in clicking source one and source two.

Second, I wonder why you never quoted Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2 that deal with the first day of the week?

Act 20:7 - And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

@Bobbyaf,

Without judging your character, I observe that you've not been consistent in your interpretation of the texts under discussion. M4malik has pointed that out, and I'm persuaded that's the case. You would really help the discussion forward if you demonstrate more grace in your speech.

@m4malik,

I don't think you should react unnecessarily to Bobby's language, if you have to reply at all.

We have a liberty in Christ not to be yoked under a rigid "law". Christians from the first century have been worshipping on Sunday, the first day of the week; and God inspired it to be written down in the NT for our blessing. We're not made spiritual by the observance of days, years or whatever - but rather, faith in Jesus Christ.

Hey you guys Bobbyaf and syrup, knock it off. I'm really ashamed of the quarrel you both are brewing up on just interpretations of "the Law" and trying to outdo each other on that.

The Spirit was given to us who believe on Christ to enjoy a liberty more glorious than is found in "the Law" God gave to Israel through Moses, regardless whatever a website says. To those who want to yoke themselves under the seventh-day sabbath and mix it in with grace, good luck to them. And to those who understand they're not the same, enjoy what God has given you in Christ and quit trying to convince a mindset that won't see it.

@OlaAjia,

OlaAjia:
Ignorance is a desease. Who's mixing Judaism and christianity? Is it not how it appears in the bible I have quoted it? So what are you saying?

It's true - ignorance is a disease, and a terrible one at that: yours! You see why I marvel at your youthful half-baked education, because you simply are unschooled. In your rigid Islamic orientation, you can't make out the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Go figure, then we can talk.

babyosisi:
How come you carefully avoided the aisha and the numerous women issue?That makes him man right?,wrong that makes him a PEDOPHILIC WOMANIZER WITH AN INSATIABLE SEXUAL URGE aka PERVERT and a MURDERER of innocent people.

That's the style I notice in his infantile arguments - pick some, avoid the more salient issues, pretend the embarrassing events in Islam never happened, run off with yet more Islamic propaganda, and come round sounding ever so empty.

babyosisi:
How convenient of you to now see Muhammad as a mere man,the question is how good of a man was he?Of what good is someone who doesn't steal but couldn't keep his eyes and hands off women and children.

Some of us have been trying to be 'politically correct' with discussions about the Quraish Prophet. However, the fact that so many feel persuaded that their eternal destiny hinges on him, should make us all want to examine his claims, his career, and his morality in view of his pretended calling as a 'holy' prophet.

I can't understand why or how a 'holy' prophet could be ever so full of sin that that he needed to repent over seventy times in a day -

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319:
Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day."

I don't understand how a 'holy' prophet could be ever so after women to have had a reputation of pedophilia and womanizing.

I don't understand how a 'holy' prophet still could not know his destiny beyond the grave that he confessed he didn't know what "Allah" would do to him on that day!

I don't understand how or why a 'holy' prophet could treat women with unspeakable contempt as is evident in several of the hadith.

I don't understand why or how those who follow such a self-declared prophet refused to examine his claims and the unholy career and immorality pursued by this man.

It's just about time that people blow off the smoke and courageously take a serious look at the claims of Muhammad.

Darkchild,

There are different 'types' of Christians in just the same way as there are different types of Muslims.

Essentially, authentic Christianity believe in God, that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world; and true Christians put their faith in Jesus as Lord, and seek to apply the Word of God in their lives in pursuit of holiness and righteousness.

From the above, Unitarianism does not hold a stable belief in God, Jesus or the Bible - and therefore is not regarded as authentically 'Christian'.

lioness:
~~~ lioness is tactfully watching her prey ~~~

LOL! Don't rustle the bush. . . your "prey" might take off!

@Darkchild,

First, you must understand that not all who call themselves 'Christians' actually believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor even believe in God at all. This may surprise you, but it is true. The article published by 'Theology Students in the USA' which you referred to in your post, aligns much with Unitarianism. Quoting from a BBC Religion & Ethics webpage, among the several things believed in and held by this group (and several like them) in soundbites are:
________________________________#

¤ God
Not all Unitarians believe in God or even use the word. Some find the word 'God' meaningless, others believe it is too burdened with wrong ideas to be useful.

¤ God is one
Unitarianism rejects the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or three Persons in one God, made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They typically believe that God is one being - God the Father, or Mother. Jesus was simply a man, not the incarnate deity. For some, notions of the Holy Spirit offer a closer fit with their understanding of the divine.
________________________________ #

Let's observe this: if Unitarians do not all believe in God, does it not contradict their position to yet believe in 'God the Father or Mother'?

Continuing. . .

________________________________ #

¤ God the Father or Mother
Unitarians may accept many ideas of God as valid - for example:
       - the principle that unites all things
       - the ground of existence
       - the source of original and ongoing creation
       - the ultimate good
       - the ideals and aspirations of humanity
       - a loving (parental) power with which human beings can have a personal relationship (some see this power as masculine, others as feminine)
       - the still small voice within each of us
       - a great mystery

¤ Jesus Christ
Many Unitarians, particularly in North America, do not identify themselves as Christian. Those Unitarians who continue to regard Jesus as central to their faith will typically hold some or all of the following views about him:
       - Jesus was a man, not God
       - Jesus was not physically resurrected
       - Jesus was a Jewish prophet with a mission of reconciliation
       - Jesus was filled with divine inspiration
       - Jesus is a supreme example of living with integrity and compassion
       - Jesus' life is reflective of the divine potential in all of us
Unitarians maintain that Jesus didn't think of himself as God - and although he sometimes seems to speak of himself as God in the Bible, they are inclined to say that this is based on a misunderstanding of the text and the culture of his time.
Jesus did not survive in a physical sense. He survives in a poetic or metaphorical sense in that his spirit lives on in the churches and believers inspired by him.

¤ Evil
Unitarians don't believe in original sin. Human beings have not fallen from grace and are not dependent on God's intervention to grant them salvation.
__________________________________#

Now let's discuss the foregoing. Take evil for instance: is the Unitarian concept of 'evil' the same as the Christian or the Islamic understanding - that we do not have to depend on God's intervention to grant us salvation? Or, take the concept of 'God the Father or Mother' - is that what Christianity (or even Islam) teaches about God? The answers are obvious.

The point is, when taking a look at important doctrines of the Christian faith, one should be willing to base their ideas and inferences on the Bible - which is the centripetal and collective point of reference among true Christians. Not all "Theology Students in the USA" actually believe in the Bible in much the same way that Unitarians do not believe in God or even use the Word, though they may often refer to themselves as "Churches" while rejecting any appellation addressing them as "Christian". Isn't that all quaint? But it's the state of affairs that exists today. Hence, anyone trying to quote these 'theological' losers in support of whatever idea they are pursuing, might as well find in their theology every bit of quote against the Trinity on the one hand, and every bit of quote for a feminine idea of God ('the Mother'), and every bit or quote for whatever goes against the Bible and mainstream Christian teaching. This is the reason why you'll find such people pushing the homosexual agenda in the 'Church', and people would be caught unawares and point to them as the prime example that the 'Church' supports homosexuality.

I just needed to clarify that your sources do not speak for the Christian Church - and the example of Unitarianism attests to that.

You guys amuse me.

When Muslim apologists use derogatory language, we don't see the likes of ISAHO or blackconjee.
Instead, some of you will applaud them and encourage their continued derision unabated.

When Christians serve them in the same lingo (which I'm not encouraging), then the following pour
out from the likes of ISAHO et al:

# keep quiet

# don't use derogatory statements

# don't shout

# not in this thread or others. . .

then -

# you Christians should turn the other cheek

# so that we Muslims can keep bashing you

# and insulting your beliefs and doctrines

# and shouting

# and applauding ourselves for attacking your religion

# unabated

# until you Christians start again. . .

And then -

# when you Christians start again

# we Muslims wish Ajisafe would hurry up

# and come with his boiling vitriol and derision

# or we appeal to atheists and skeptics

# or just resign with a whimpers and snivels.

Why is it that you Muslims don't caution your brethren about the way they discuss on the Forum until you get the same reaction from Christians? If you can't stand up to take the heat you started, don't dish it out to others. Try not waiting to be told what to do before they tell you - it would make the Forum a place where all can learn without necessarily getting miffed at one another.

@Oga Gwaine,

I know you're upset with ajia23 - I've had to go back and re-read some of the postings, and indeed found what you're saying is correct: ajia23 didn't sound like he was open to dialogue but had already made up his mind and wanted readers to "confirm" his mindset. All I can say at this time is that they threw stones first and several Christians got offended; but we can teach them we don't take the pleasure to just spin off at tangents by not descending to their level. So, please. . . let's calm down and rather invite them to see that the manner in which they have acted is equally unhealthy - and we can do that by patiently pointing them to the Bible, even if ajia23 does not want us to go the Biblical way of quoting Biblical verses to prove our points.

@ajia23, ajia23, ajia23!!!

How many times I call you so? You've encountered Gwaine a few times on this Forum and know that he usually warns you well enough to calm down and talk to him. You don't seem to be doing that by using unhealthy expressions such as "quintessential christian doctrine of hypocrisy on display" inspite of the several attempts of Christians to explain issues raised from the Bible. Now that you're setting rules for them not to quote the Bible and still keep making recourse to such unhealthy remarks, why do you suddenly start complaining about finding Gwaine's posts offensive? You're not being practical, and perhaps no one may be able to help your case if you keep trumping up such remarks. The Christian doctrine is not hypocritical - and since you delight in using such to denegrate the Christian faith, you're only inviting unfriendly rejoinders to your posts.


BTW, OlaAjia verily seems to have a knife or something like that sticking out under his folded arms - not important though, but it's there all the same if you look more closely.

@Softee,

NO-NO-NO!! My dear, don't let them read you mentioning "evil" about their paradise oooo! A suicide bomber and pedophilic molester might be dispatched to you, care not taken.

Lol, kidding.

Seriously, in fairness, they don't think their paradise in any connotation to evil - no one should, afterall it is a place prepared by God. What I observe is only a matter of interpretation. The terms are the same ("paradise", the desire the same ("reward of the righteous", but the motives and methods of obtaining it are different between Islam and Christianity.

There are no 72 virgins waiting as rewards for murderers in Christianity;
whereas, for all MALE terrorists who "fight" for 'Allah', 72 virgins and rivers of liquer await them.

In Christiainity, there are no sexual engagements because those who enjoy the resurrection of the just are like angels (Matt. 22:30);
whereas in Islam, sex and booze are incentives to incite to murders.

Christ denounced the idea of murdering anyone as service to God - such will be severely judged (John 16:2);
whereas Muslims would rather follow the religion of the Quraish prophet who went about with a sword.

Christ restrains us from judging others by Christian theology - for He alone is the divine Judge in that day (John 5:22);
however, all that is needed in Islam to judge the "infidels" is a hatred sparked off by nothing other than anti-Christian hate.

They may not like what I'm stating here, but there are loads of other issues to make one wonder as you do about the mindset of a Muslim who longs for the reward of 72 women to ravish on the other side of reality. No such ideas exist in paradise - and we don't need to wonder about it - Christ gives us the assurance of the future in our hearts.

@gloriouspl,

OlaAjia has no pastor or church - and we pray he finds Christ pronto and then get answers from an anointed pastor who knows God's Word. The chap is an innocent youth with a knife tucked under his arms (see his picture on his profile), ready to defend a religion by an Arab prophet - little of which he knows nothing about and is misled into following the gambit of a pedophile.

Lol, babyosisi. . . you really mean business today with these "learned" chaps. It seems so easy for them to point accusing fingers at others, especially Christians, without having taken a very unbiased look at the pedophile they are hanging their faith on. More and more women (even Muslim women) are speaking up and asking certain questions about the place of women in the religion that beats and maltreats women, and yet calls itself 'the religion of peace'. And about time they did.

@Davidylan,
Another good point. The woman is not at all regarded in Islam as she only exists to serve the whims of the Quraish prophet. Some of the MALE terrorists have not bothered asking what type of virgins they would be rewarded with - whether Arab virgins, Caucasian harems, or Black beauties. If you bring up this point where they are, they'll consider it a crime punishable by more bombs and suicide missions. It's about time that people really seriously question the place of a woman in Islam. Muslims know very well that Muhammad had no respect for women, and that's why they'll pretend that a woman is appreciated in the religion of the Arab molester and pedophile.

@Softee,

You know only too well that Islam is the bedrock of religious violence and war, even though not every muslim is bellicose. As far as the 'holy' Qur'an has stipulated that adherents of Muhammad and his religion should fight and kill perceived "infidels", then 'true' muslims who 'believe in Allah and the last Day' will do anything to get into their promised paradise with 72 virgins (as Gwaine has helped us to more clearly understand).

You contrast this with the spirit and teaching of Jesus Christ, and you'll find that muslim understanding of the peace proffered in Christianity is misconstrued for "pacifism". Jesus Himself foresaw the murderous zest of those who would claim that they follow His teachings and yet would go all out against those who are true Christians - from the dark ages when they were murdered by 'fellow' Romish priests. . . down through the ages until the arabian 'prophet' settled the matter once for all and made it a doctrine to murder Christians.

So, if we refuse to commit murder in the name of God, muslims will quickly turn to the Old Testament and say, 'there - Moses commanded you Christians to kill; and if you don't, then you're liars and disobeying your Lord!" I laugh whenever I read the desperations of such simpletons; because quite often they have this stereotypical notion that Moses was a Christian, and Jesus wanted to make Jews of everyone!

As far as Muhammad asked his followers to kill and murder people of other religions and beliefs, his followers have followed in his footsteps and are still doing so. Not to even mention what Muhammad did to atheists of his day!!

OlaAjia:
Thanks for that site. It was really helpful. I never even knew that something like that existed. I was surprised to note that even the Biblical laws concerning cutting of hands and putting sinners to death are harsher than the Quranic ones. .

When you mix up Judaism and Christianity it only exposes your ignorance all the more. I deliberately referred you to that site and there are loads more that are available if you need them. But the point is, while you will not find Christians cutting anybody's hands, mutilating anyone's body parts, or flogging our wives by 'revelation', you will find all these things and more in the so-called religion of peace as commandments.

OlaAjia:
Unfortunately 4get_me, since it is clear to me that the Bible has suffered alterations, and there appears to be controversy on what and what-not to believe, I only settle for the verses of the bible that conform with the teachings of the Quran that I claim is still as intact as it was at the time of revelation, in order to be on the safe side.

I'm not surprised at all - that's what many Mulsims have been taught to do: judge every other religion by the Qur'an; and yet your Muslim apologists are desperately trying to search the Bible and the Hindu scriptures in order to find Muhammad "prophesied" in them. Second, if you're sincere about the authenticity of the Qur'an, you'd not be struggling to acknowledge that earlier copies were ordered to be burnt by Caliph Uthman, and the copies he had were a redaction of what he could find. Even so, some of Muhammad's followers were often in disagreement as to the recitations of particular verses of the Qur'an - and the Quraish prophet could only compromise between them so that there wouldn't be frequent fall-outs.

OlaAjia:
As laughable as my claim may be, it is true! I consider Allah to be absolutely Perfect, and as a result, will not expect a perfect being to make those mistakes realized in the bible. The Bible that was referred to in the Quran is the book that was sent down to Jesus, from God, which has lost its Original meanings, thanks to its translators, whose sole aim was to merge the doctrine of Jesus with those of the pagans, so that more people will accept it, but in the process, loose the essence of the Message of Jesus.

You're even more hilarious here. Talk of a 'Perfect Being' purporting to have revealed a 'book' to Jesus, and yet you acknowledge that 'he' let it pass into the hands of 'translators' to distort the Message of Jesus. Biko kwa, could you tell me what the original Message of Jesus was?

There are a few slips in your suppositions actually. If the 'Allah' that sent the Qur'an was the very same that sent down, confirmed and revealed the Gospel to Jesus (Sura 003:003), why was 'he' not able to save it from the translators in just the same way as you claim for the Qur'an? Surely, that same 'Allah' should have been able to 'guard' all 'his' books, and not to have suffered even the original copies of the Qur'an to be burnt by order of Caliph Uthman. Two questions that beg for answers: (a) what was wrong with the existing codex of the Qur'an that Uthman ordered to be burnt? (b) why did Uthman order those codex of the Qur'an to be burnt?

If there was nothing wrong with the other manuscripts and they all were the same revelation from 'Allah', a mere mortal surely would have had no power to politically edit 'his' word (as Muslims are wont to believe) - yes? That it is a veritable historical fact that Caliph Uthman indeed ordered the destruction of those other manuscripts speaks volumes in itself - and what you have today is Uthman's words, not Allah's.

OlaAjia:
As I do not want to make this post unnecessarily long and boring for readers, I will only refer you to the sites that prove that the chapters 'Mark' and 'John' were written years after the death of Christ. Check http://www.mustardseed.net/html/pemark.html and http://wywy.essortment.com/johngospelbibl_ryib.htm. Many chapters in the new Testament pose a lot of questions as to their authenticity, because not only do they contradict some chapters in the Old testament, they also contradict those in the same new testament. These contradictions are enough to prove alterations through inconsistency.

Let me help you think carefully through your statements, long post or not. First, I patiently went through the websites you offered. Unfortunately, there was nothing in either article to discredit Mark, John or the other synoptic Gospel accounts (Matthew and Luke). Second, there were no Gospel accounts written during Jesus' earthly life and ministry - so the later "additions" of 'Mark' and 'John' as you inferred earlier do not help your argument. That being the case, the Qur'an was claiming a comical farce about 'Allah' having "sent down" and "confirmed" the Gospel to Jesus (Sura 003:003) - a claim which is preposterous at best, because no written account of Jesus existed during His life on earth!

Having so confirmed yourself that <'Mark' and 'John' were written years after the death of Christ>, what "Gospel" then was the 'Allah' of the Qur'an referring to in claiming 'Allah' "sent down" and "confirmed" - the ones written before, during or after Jesus' life and ministry, or the ones written by Muhammad himself and interpolated in the Suras? If you believe in your statement that they were written years after the death of Christ, then the claim of the 'Allah' of the Qur'an was bogus; if on the other hand, they were written during Christ's life on earth, then your claim is equally bogus. To solve your present dilemma, may I ask again: did the Gospel accounts not have Mark 1:1, John 1:1 and 10:36 in them when they were written?

OlaAjia:
You say that if the Bible really underwent consequent corruption, then Allah should have known better than to have revealed it. Truly, there is no doubt that Allah knew what was going to happen, but come to think of it this way. If you run a boarding school, should you because of those students that waste food, deny the few that don't waste it their meal? Better put this way: Allah also knew that it will guide a few people aright, and it did!

Already addressed just above, except that you seem to be a bit comical in your last lines - are you inferring then that the Bible no longer guides people aright? The answer might both interest and surprise you.

OlaAjia:
For your Information, unlike the Bible you read, the Quran came directly to prophet Muhammed(p.b.u.h), from Allah, through Angel Gabriel. As the Prophet recited it, it was written down on rocks, and back of trees, among other materials by his companions. It was compiled and reviewed before the death of the Prophet with angel Gabriel. Caliph Uthman only authorized its reproduction, so that there would be enough to be distributed to the places where Islam was spread, but I can assure you that it is still in its original text, and there is nothing to hide.

Blah, blah, blah - you're repeating what you've learnt by rote, and you typically left out the part that Caliph Uthman ordered the then extant copies of 'Allah's' word to be burnt. - - -Why did you hide that part?

OlaAjia:
It is now your turn to show me "what I missed in my skeptic quotes of the old testament".
Please note that any mistake I make is my mistake, and any truth I say is what Islam has thought me. So please do not find reasons to attribute my mistakes to the teachings of Islam. Thanks for your co-operation. I have also tried to be as concise as possible, so you can highlight any of your questions that I have omitted, as my omissions are not intended.

No problem. When you've dealt with the issues of the Gospel accounts raised in my concerns, then I'll betake myself to your oversight of the skeptic OT quotes. I do not make the mistake of attributing a Muslim's misconceptions to the teachings of Islam, be rest assured. Just scroll up and review the concerns raised in my earlier posts, particularly about the Gospels having always declared Jesus Christ to be the Son of God ab initio.

Salam.

@IAH, "mouth odour" - correct!

24. Why is it called alcoholics anonymous when the first thing you do is stand up and say "hi, my name's Bob. I'm an alcoholic"?
That's his 'anonymous' nickname - and it can equally be Bobby.

26. Why is there a light in the fridge but not in the freezer?
The last time I checked it was still there. . . until you asked the question!

29. Who was the first person to look at a cow and say "I think i'll squeeze these dangly things here and drink what comes out"?
Damn! How did you know it was my neighbour? Anyway, he drank piss the first time!

30. If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
He's specialised in radio fixes, and he'd need one to call the engineer for the boat job 360 miles away!

32. What do you call male ballerinas?
Simple: "soccer-arenas" or "suckers!" If "ballerinas" is the combination of "ball" + "erinas", then the closest thing to "ball" is "soccer" - and those who can't play are suckers! QED!!

33. Can blind people see their dreams and do they dream?
Why should you want to know - supposing they told you what they had been dreaming about you??

34. If Wile E coyote has enough money to by all that Acme crap why doesn't he buy his dinner?
Wile E is a load of crap - no chef would sell dinners to "it!"

37. If corn oil is made from corn and vegetable oil is made from vegetables. What is baby oil made from?
Babes - especially the ones at YabaTech!

39. Why is it that when someone tells you that there's billions of stars in the universe, you believe them. But if they tell you there's wet paint somewhere you have to touch it?
Depends on where the "wet" paint is located (no further comments!). Secondly, reality happens on earth - we must finish our business here first before the space trip.

Again, many thanks. Here's a little something of interest in your reply:

Seun:
Having thought of it a little bit more, yes, the introduction of the new naira notes will cause a small amount of inflation if the government does not withdraw an equivalent number of smaller denomination notes for each 1000 naira note that's injected into the system. But bear in mind that they can print an excess amount of even 50 naira notes to cause inflation. It's not about the denominations, it's about the policy. Too much money equals inflation.

So far so good - and perhaps you'd agree that's basically the gist of my argument:

4get_me:
Astute political leaders who understand the rubrics of a nation's economy are not seen desperately introducing higher denominations of their currencies, especially in the wake of political, social and economic instabilities. The factors driving inflation in Nigeria have not been addressed, and the entry of the N1000 spells further injury to our national psyche and economic acumen. What was really the driving force behind the new denomination- have we really thought about that?

"Policy". . . "factors driving inflation" - are we speaking two dialects here, or it's all a matter of nomenclature? Until the Government sits down and addresses these factors (or policies) in practical terms, our economic problems will be perennial. I have no problem with the introduction of higher denominations in the capital market; but doing so at this time is bad blood in our economic arteries. How is the Government addressing inflation and what policies have been implemeted with results to boost our confidence in a more viable economy as yet?

I think timing is crucial, as well the policies of concern to us so far in the discussion. Given those, I'd gladly welcome even the intro of N10,000 bill into the capital market.

I love you [b]2[/b]day
  +
  I love you [b]2[/b]morow
                ______
  I love you [b]4[/b]ever!

Oga Seun, thank you. How does your recommendation fault what I have posted?

@OlaAjia,

OlaAjia:
To start with, let me first make it clear to you that I don't believe in many verses in the Bible of these days because of the alterations that it has suffered in the hands of its originators as well as translators. You are absolutely correct in your claim that the bible existed much longer before Prophet Muhammed(p.b.u.h) as in your quote from Yussuf Ali. Muslims could have believed the Bible of these days if it were the Bible that is being referred to in the Holy Quran, but as much as I wouldn't love to say this, the Bible is already corrupted.

I appreciate the fact that your Islamic stereotype helps your ignorance even in your arguments. It's okay to not believe in 'many' verses in the Bible "these days" - but how does that help your case in offering counter-claims to my enquiries? Which one of the verses do you even believe in at all? It's laughable to read your excuse that 'Muslims could have believed the Bible of these days' - as if it differs anything in its original declarations at the time when Allah sent down, confirmed and revealed the "Gospel" that has always asserted the divine sonship of Jesus Christ! When have Muslims ever believed the Bible in Islamic history? So, let me ask: What "Bible" was being referred to in the Holy Qur'an - the one that did not have Mark 1:1, John 1:1 and John 10:36? Please!!

OlaAjia:
Funny as it may seem, many chapters in your bible were added many years after the death of Jesus(A.S.W).

That's another Islamic stereotype that Muhammad has short-changed you guys with. Question: When did the Bible not have "Son of God" in the Gospel accounts before your supposed many chapters that "were added many years after the death Jesus"? A second question: How many, and what specific chapters, 'were added many years after the death of Jesus' - and in what year(s), and by who precisely?

I'll be glad to know when and by whom Mark 1:1, John 1:1 and John 10:36 'were added many years after the death of Jesus'.

OlaAjia:
This possibly explains the high level of imperfection present in a "Divine" book supposedly revealed by a Perfect being. I though find it very interesting that despite the fact that these claims are true, your faith arrogance has forced you not to testify to the truth.

Testify to what 'truth' exactly - the multiplied lies that the self-declared Quraish 'prophet' presented to you? Sorry, my "faith arrogance" forbids me from euphemizing his lies to any semblance of 'truth'. As for the Divine Book revealed by a Perfect Being, your complaint and whining is like condemning the same "Allah" of the Qur'an who claimed to have sent down, confirmed and revealed that same Book! If the Divine Book was not revealed and was consequently corrupted, then the 'Allah' of the Qur'an ought to have known better than to have "supposedly revealed" it!

There's no pretending the fact that the Bible would be translated into many languages - and for all that, many people would try to twist scripture and change its meaning. Many of such abound in the market, just as there are many spurious translations of the Qur'an in the market today. Biblical scholars have exposed most of those spurious versions for what they are; and Christians have lost nothing in the essential message of the Bible - the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ; His Humanity and Deity; His Lordship and Salvation for the world; the wonderful promises of God; the prophecies of God's dealings; and the soon coming back of Jesus Christ to establish everlasting righteousness.

Even so, have you forgotten to look closer home to your dogmatic sentimentality? The Qur'an was written ('compiled' is only a pun) by several men who had no divine commission, nor any leading of God upon their lives and hearts. Every one of its chapters from start to finish were politically "arranged" by men; and subsequent copies politically drafted while all original copies were destroyed by the third caliph that ruled the day - Caliph Uthman! I would be glad to take this up in some detail if you so request.

In just the same way as you alleged, it's my submission then that the 'Allah' of the Qur'an couldn't keep 'his book' from the raging fires of the Caliph Uthman that destroyed them - yes or no? And as a matter of consequence, what Muslims read today is not the revelation of Allah but the document handed down by the powerful Caliph Uthman.

OlaAjia:
It would not cost me a thing to prove my claims and I will do just that however, in modesty, I will use few proofs, except you demand for more. I present the bible to you 4get me:
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

If you're copying and re-posting what you've ferreted from a Skeptic website, there's more to add to the list you're presenting on the Forum. Don't forget also that such Skeptic sites have a version for the Quran as well, and you can access it here: Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an.

OlaAjia:
Unfortunately, the bible had been altered right before the time of the Prophet(s.a.w) and the Prophet was very well aware of this and that is why Muslims took the very difficult but profitable precautions to preserve the Quran in its original text.
Please not that I'm not perfect in answering questions, but I hope I have been able to satisfy your questions.

First, the Qur'an you read today is a political redaction of the third Caliph (Uthman) and his team - let's not make pretences about that. Second, you may not be perfect in answering questions (just as I'm not), but you've dribbled round the issues raised in my concerns posted earlier (scroll up and see). What did the 'Gospel' contain when the 'Allah' of the Qur'an sent down, confirmed and revealed it to Jesus - did it not have Mark 1:1, John 1:1 and 10:36 that clearly declared Jesus as the Son of God and God Himself?? When were these verses added and by whom? It's either you face up to that, or the claims in the Qur'an about a knowledge and revelation of the Gospel are bogus.

When you address the present issues and not dribble round them, then I'll show you what you missed in your skeptic quotes of the Old Testament.

Regards.

Yes sir, I sure will - and that's the language I'll be using when delineating Muhammad's crimes.

ajia23:
Why do you pray for the dead when you are about to bury them in christianity?

@ajia23,

With lordimpaq, let me acknowledge that you have my respects as a Muslim; at least, you've demonstrated a willingness to learn and query issues that need to be addressed - no matter how difficult. I don't know everything, but I make every effort to offer what can be verified from the Bible and the Qur'an in my posts.

However, please note well that my earlier reply did not categorically state that it is a confirmed Biblical practice to pray for the dead when they are about to be buried. Let's recall my statement:

4get_me:
(a) Praying to commit a soul to God at funeral rites may be plausible and understandable, although at this time I can't proffer Biblical references to the point (when I'm less busy at home, I'll attempt that).

That should make us understand that I haven't read anywhere in the Bible about this practice; and so could not confirm it is a veritable and established doctrine of Biblical Christianity. By 'plausible', therefore, the reader should understand that I couldn't decry or disavow the giving of thanks for a life well lived, or of committing a soul to God with thanks-giving at a funeral rite. These are just my personal opinions about the 'plausible' committing of a soul with thanks to God, and I may be largely and strongly faulted on that.

However, as lordimpaq as eruditely observed, the Catholic practice of praying to departed souls is clearly unbiblical and wrong. First of all, we all understand that prayer is addressed to none other but God alone, even as we read in Psa. 65:2 - "O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come." And in the New Testament, there's only one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). That is why prayer is offered only in the name of Jesus, because He asked Christians to pray and ask the Father in His (Jesus') name for whatever needs we have: "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name." (John 16:23).

It is one thing to pray for people; quite another to pray to people - and those who pray to the dead (even though they were 'saints') are contravening God's Word, for that would be the same thing as necromancy.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Interestingly enough, a Muslim friend of mine in another forum sent me this enquiry:

If necromancy, as you described, includes praying for the dead in a continual manner, doesn't it show that the Bible infact encourages it in Psalm 72:15? This is what the King James Version says there: 'And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised.' That means, even after the death of this person (presumably Solomon, according to the title verse 1), prayers will continually be made for him?

My response:

Dear ¤¤¤¤¤¤,

When you read the whole chapter carefully, you'll notice that Psa. 72 is one of the 'prophetic' Psalms of David that points to Christ. Not only so, it was one of the 'prayers' of David (see verse 20 - ''The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended'). Although the Psalm may be a prayer of King David for his son Solomon, there were 'prophetic ingredients' embedded in that prayer such that the reader ultimately was to look beyond Solomon to 'a greater than Solomon,' as Jesus referred to Himself in Matt. 12:42. Some of such 'prophetic ingredients' about the Messiah in the Psalm are found in verses 8, 11 and 17 - "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. . .Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. . . His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed."

In reality, the verses delineated above would not refer to Solomon, because only in Jesus Christ do we see them fulfilled. In anycase, verse 15 would speak of Solomon indeed; but please note well, that 'prayer also shall be made for him continually' does not suggest that this would continue after Solomon's death! There is no such suggestion there or anywhere else; and we only have to ask indeed if anyone prayed for Solomon continually after his death. Answer: there was no such event or practice among Godly Jews - either for Solomon himself or any other king before and after him. That verse only speaks of prayer made for Solomon while he was yet alive, because even the beginning of that very verse makes it obvious, where it says 'he shall live'!

No - Psalm 72:15 is not proof text for the support of necromancy in the Bible.


In due course, I'll try and post some of my observations about the p.b.u.h. prayer that Muslims say after every mention of the Prophet Muhammad.

Many blessings be yours.

She didn't say the questions should not be answered; so whether or not the unwritten rule still stands, I'll gate-crash here because some of them need to be addressed! Oya, 40 questions to answer any 12 of ma choice -

2. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
Try the experiment once more - open the cap of the bottle for some days and report back to us!

3. Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?
You're joking with those 'ogbologbo' people? Haa!

4. Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
Because it's the shorter form of "abbreviation" by just one letter!

7. Why is it considered necessary to nail down the lid of a coffin?
Because in Naija anything can happen - and especially for some who turn in their graves when they remember
that some people are still owing them, their coffins must be nailed down!!

8. Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?
Because medical accidents and mistakes still happen!

11. Why is it that when you're driving and looking for an address, you turn down the volume on the radio?
Some of us don't care, because that's when we blast it full volume - incase someone in the neighbourhood shouts
out: "Baba Jimoh!" (for whatever reason).

13. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
The result speaks for itself - one who makes you broke by investing all your money deserves an oscar!

18. Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?
Mice are now regarded as snacks to cats (watch Garfield!).

22. If a person owns a piece of land, do they own it all the way down to the center of the earth?
No, afterall it's just a 'piece' that they own! (But in some places in Naija, den go follow you drag land to the center of the earth!)

23. Why can't woman put their mascara on with their mouth closed?
I would answered this one, but my madam has her rolling pin behind my head!

36. If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?
Testical.

40. Did you ever notice that if you blow in a dogs face it goes mad, yet when you take him on a car ride
he sticks his head straight out the window?
Haba! There's something in the mouth of the person blowing in its face; that's why there must be freshair outa the window!

My brother Lordimpaq, my admiration to you as well. I'm waiting for my Muslim friends to examine these claims with an open mind, because quite often they allege that Christians have intentionally chosen not to understand the true God. Let them drop their dogmatic and sentimental attachment to the Quraish prophet and put him under the spotlight of his own claims.