ISelectMySins:


Muhammad is not a prophet at all, but a God-fearing fraud.

What is your opinion about the prophecy of Isaiah 42?

Who do you think is the chosen servant?

With the way things eventually played out after that prophecy, there are only two candidates.

Jesus: That claimed he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matthew 15:24. He even told his disciples not to go into the ways of the gentiles not even the Samaritans that are partly Israelites in Matthew 10:5

Muhammad: He claimed to be sent to all mankind and the prophecy is giving us some Arab vibes.

Qasim6:



I totally agree with you. There need to be testimony of those that came before him.





In Daniel 2, The king of Babylon saw a vision, which Daniel interprets as 5 successive kingdoms.
The first of the 5 kingdoms is Babylon and the last will be a God's Kingdom.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Historically the first 4 kingdoms were
Babylon - Persia - Greece - Rome
And the kingdom that came after the Roman empire was Islamic Empire.

The Christians did not defeat the Roman empire, infact they became an extension of the the Roman empire, the Roman christains exiled the Jews from Jerusalem and dump filths at the site of the holy temple, they persecuted non trinitarian christains. It was the Muslims that cleanse the temple site and allow the Israelites back into Jerusalem when they defeated the Romans and take Jerusalem from them.

Again on this subject.

You have to realise that when you type "The Fall of the Roman empire" on google; it usually refers to just the western Empire; what about the eastern empire? Isn't this supposed Islamic caliphate supposed to defeat both empires as evidenced from these two passages:

As you watched, a rock was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands. It struck the feet of iron and clay, smashing them to bits. 35 The whole statue was crushed into small pieces of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold.

That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold.

“During the reigns of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered. It will crush all these kingdoms into nothingness, and it will stand forever. 45 That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold.


Granted, the western empire fell in the fifth century and the eastern half, the Byzantine empire with its capital in Constantinople, continued for more than one thousand years and fell to the Ottoman empire, but this is at variance with the prophecy shown to Nebuchadnezzar.

The rock is not even an empire or a caliphate per say. I think the rock is divine assistance or used to signify a force outside human capabilities; it is supposed to pave the way for the kingdom of God that would be setup. Mark the words - that would be setup. If you claim that the passage only makes it clear that the feet of the fourth empire would be struck, not the entire legs, and that should been construed to mean Byzantine, then I would partially agree, but the kingdom that was setup in its place no longer exist - Ottoman. When the Ottman defeated the Byzantine empire, it was already very weak; this cannot be seen as a "crushing" of previous empires into nothingness. The kingdom is supposed to serve a purpose. So clearly, the last empire would not fall through guerilla warfare because any empire that topples the fourth empire has already been setup. Further reading shows that this kingdom is said to stand forever because it is not an earthly kingdom.

The passage is supposed to be understood as God toppling very strong empires and establishing his own kingdom after men must have wrestled and wrangled power from each other for a long, long time.

ISelectMySins:


Again on this subject.

You have to realise that when you type "The Fall of the Roman empire" on google; it usually refers to just the western Empire; what about the eastern empire? Isn't this supposed Islamic caliphate supposed to defeat both empires as evidenced from these two passages:

As you watched, a rock was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands. It struck the feet of iron and clay, smashing them to bits. 35 The whole statue was crushed into small pieces of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold.

That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold.

“During the reigns of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered. It will crush all these kingdoms into nothingness, and it will stand forever. 45 That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold.


Granted, the western empire fell in the fifth century and the eastern half, the Byzantine empire with its capital in Constantinople, continued for more than one thousand years and fell to the Ottoman empire, but this is at variance with the prophecy shown to Nebuchadnezzar.

The rock is not even an empire or a caliphate per say. I think the rock is divine assistance or used to signify a force outside human capabilities; it is supposed to pave the way for the kingdom of God that would be setup. Mark the words - that would be setup. If you claim that the passage only makes it clear that the feet of the fourth empire would be struck, not the entire legs, and that should been construed to mean Byzantine, then I would partially agree, but the kingdom that was setup in its place no longer exist - Ottoman. When the Ottman defeated the Byzantine empire, it was already very weak; this cannot be seen as a "crushing" of previous empires into nothingness. The kingdom is supposed to serve a purpose. So clearly, the last empire would not fall through guerilla warfare because any empire that topples the fourth empire has already been setup. Further reading shows that this kingdom is said to stand forever because it is not an earthly kingdom.

The passage is supposed to be understood as God toppling very strong empires and establishing his own kingdom after men must have wrestled and wrangled power from each other for a long, long time.

In your opinion the God's Kingdom is not physical
It is going to be a spiritual kingdom?

The ottoman empire might not be in existence, but the countries that made up the empire are still under Islamic rule, for me that count as forever.

Since the prophecy is open to different interpretations, we can ignore the prophecy.

You can respond to the other Prophecy.

Qasim6:


What is your opinion about the prophecy of Isaiah 42?

Who do you think is the chosen servant?

Who I think is the chosen servant? The chosen servant is a Jew - and this is as clear as light.

Yes, the villages of Kedar and the people of Sela as spoken of in verses 11 and 12 are descendants of Ishmael, but that is because God's chosen servant is a guide for the nation. He would be extremely useful everywhere, not just in Jewish lands but in Arabia and the farthest ends of the earth as well.

In verse 6 of Isaiah 42, it reads:

“I, the Lord, have called you (the chosen servant spoken verse 1) to demonstrate my righteousness.
I will take you by the hand and guard you,
and I will give you to my people, Israel,
as a symbol of my covenant with them.
And you will be a light to guide the nations.

A symbol of God's covenant with his people cannot be a gentile. That would be like a German father getting his son an Italian wife as part of some agreements they had. God would not take a descendant of Ishmael and give to the descendant of Israel as a symbol of his covenant with them. Your position is quite meh. It has to be one of their own people, otherwise the passage would have clearly stated a distinct origin. if more information about a certain character is not given, then it must be understood to mean a Jews. Everything must be understood as being addressed to the Jewish people except God deems it fit to expatiate his will by divulging more information.

If you have read the Bible, you would observe that God made a covenant with the Jewish people in the wilderness. All of them. The mountain was smoking hot and billowing with fire and the people, fearful, said to Moses, don't worry, everything God says, we will do. They entered into a covenant with their God that time and God's dealings with them must be understood to be that.

Any righteous person who has had impact on humanity can fit perfectly into the description of the chapter you shared, so no, it cannot pass for Mohammad. The verse is not very descriptive of who this chosen person is. It doesn't say his nationality, his gender, his race, tribe, and other identifying information about him. But one thing is certain, this chosen servant is a Jews.

What is God's covenant with the Jews? It is the fact that he called their ancestor Abraham and chose one of his sons through whom the covenant might be ratified that he might be his God and that of his descendants after him.

Qasim6:

Muhammad: He claimed to be sent to all mankind and the prophecy is giving us some Arab vibes.

Muhammad is the first non-Jewish prophet sent to all of mankind. Woah! That's quite tough. As if that is not enough, he is also the last. So he is the first and last non-Jewish prophet sent to all of mankind. The prophet of Islam is quite smart. Smarter than I actually thought of him, after all; what is stopping a Chinese an Indian, an African or people of any nationality from making the same claim, so yes, he has to be the last.

This is quite tough bro. Very, very distasteful to handle. He is not. Muhammad distorted earlier revelations and has made God a liar. The jokes is on you, though.

Qasim6:


In your opinion the God's Kingdom is not physical
It is going to be a spiritual kingdom?

The ottoman empire might not be in existence, but the countries that made up the empire are still under Islamic rule, for me that count as forever.

Since the prophecy is open to different interpretations, we can ignore the prophecy.

You can respond to the other Prophecy.

Not necessarily a spiritual kingdom because it says during the reign of those kings.

However, I think all conditions must be satisfied for any entity to be fitted in.

There is no prophecy of Muhammad anywhere in the scripture. This is because Muhammad is not a Jews.

God made a covenant with the Jewish people and their descendants. This should be written in letters of gold and every word spelled out one by one because you clearly do not understand what this means. God accepts worship from non-Jews, certainly, but it still has to be stated that God entered into a covenant with the Jews. If you have proof that God entered into a covenant with other non-Jews, share it. It might be the case, but a proof should suffice, since no one can say with certainty all of God's dealing in time. Even Jesus understood that, that was why he said he was sent to the house of Israel, God's lost sheep.

Now, In Verse 10 of the chapter you quoted, it reads:
Sing a new song to the Lord!
Sing his praises from the ends of the earth!

Then it begins to list what it perceives to be the ends of the earth.

Sing, all you who sail the seas,
all you who live in distant coastlands.
Join in the chorus, you desert towns;
let the villages of Kedar rejoice!
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
shout praises from the mountaintops!
Let the whole world glorify the Lord;
let it sing his praise.

This verses doesn't say that the chosen servant is from the ends of the earth.

Actually, it only means that the works of this chosen prophet would spread far and wide that the people who live in distant coast lands, those who live in desert towns, those who live in villages of Kedar and the people of Sela would rejoice because of the things that would be wrought there.

If God had sent a Jewish prophet to warn people in non-Jewish lands, (Nineveh the capital city of Assyria during the days of Jonah), why should we think that there are no striking parallel to this in the bible. What if I told you that the chosen prophet is Jonah? It doesn't mean the chosen prophet is an Arab; this would not be the first or last time that non-Jewish prophets ministered in gentile lands.

Qasim6:


In your opinion the God's Kingdom is not physical
It is going to be a spiritual kingdom?

The ottoman empire might not be in existence, but the countries that made up the empire are still under Islamic rule, for me that count as forever.

Since the prophecy is open to different interpretations, we can ignore the prophecy.

You can respond to the other Prophecy.

For the sake of argument. The chosen one In Isaiah is actually Jonah son of Amittai.

For the sake of argument, not all Jewish prophets were sent to their own people; some were sent to non-Jewish nations.

Jonah was to travel to Assyria by sea. He took God's words, a message of warning, to non-Jewish people. He is also a prophet. This is the first time that it was put on record that a Jewish prophet ministered to the ends of the earth - to non-Jewish people because God instructed him to, so if God sends warnings to non-Jews (who live very far away and can be likened to be the ends of the earth) through the mouth of his servants who are Jews, why should we think that Isaiah wasn't referring to one of the Jewish prophet whom God would instruct to carry his message to non-Jews? Why do we have to think that God sends Jewish prophets only to the Jews? After-all, Nineveh is a non Jewish territory quite far from Israel and Jonah is Jewish, and God sends a message to the ends of the earth through the mouth of a Jews. Do you get me?

Why do we have to think Isaiah was referring to a non-Jews taking God's word to the ends of the earth if God also uses Jews to do the same? If God intends that non-Jews would hear his message through whomever he chooses, why should we assume that the verse is a specific allusion to Muhammad? My friend, how far?

ISelectMySins:


Who I think is the chosen servant? The chosen servant is a Jew - and this is as clear as light.

Yes, the villages of Kedar and the people of Sela as spoken of in verses 11 and 12 are descendants of Ishmael, but that is because God's chosen servant is a guide for the nation. He would be extremely useful everywhere, not just in Jewish lands but in Arabia and the farthest ends of the earth as well.

Out of all places, God chose Villages of Kedar (Kedar is the direct ancestor of Muhammad) and Sela in a prophecy that is talking about a prophet to the Gentiles.

Keep trying hard to reject the truth.

By your analogy the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, because you will have to tell me which of the Jewish prophet came with a new law and made the Arabs rejoice and sing for joy.

ISelectMySins:

In verse 6 of Isaiah 42, it reads:

“I, the Lord, have called you (the chosen servant spoken verse 1) to demonstrate my righteousness.
I will take you by the hand and guard you,
and I will give you to my people, Israel,
as a symbol of my covenant with them.
And you will be a light to guide the nations.

Which translation are you using?
Are they inserting words into translations now?
Where did the "Israel" in your reading comes from?
They can keep twisting and bending the word of God.

ISelectMySins:


A symbol of God's covenant with his people cannot be a gentile. That would be like a German father getting his son an Italian wife as part of some agreements they had. God would not take a descendant of Ishmael and give to the descendant of Israel as a symbol of his covenant with them. Your position is quite meh. It has to be one of their own people, otherwise the passage would have clearly stated a distinct origin. if more information about a certain character is not given, then it must be understood to mean a Jews. Everything must be understood as being addressed to the Jewish people except God deems it fit to expatiate his will by divulging more information.

If you have read the Bible, you would observe that God made a covenant with the Jewish people in the wilderness. All of them. The mountain was smoking hot and billowing with fire and the people, fearful, said to Moses, don't worry, everything God says, we will do. They entered into a covenant with their God that time and God's dealings with them must be understood to be that.

Ok! You can keep fighting it.
The way you Christains ass lick the Jews is something I will never understand "God and his people"

They consider you Christains Idol worshipers bro!

We other races wetin we be? We no be God's people?

ISelectMySins:

Any righteous person who has had impact on humanity can fit perfectly into the description of the chapter you shared, so no, it cannot pass for Mohammad. The verse is not very descriptive of who this chosen person is. It doesn't say his nationality, his gender, his race, tribe, and other identifying information about him. But one thing is certain, this chosen servant is a Jews.

I dare you to quote any prophecy about Jesus in the old testament that is more clearer.

Even your new testament writers they twisted prophecy, they quoted prophecy that did not exist.

ISelectMySins:

What is God's covenant with the Jews? It is the fact that he called their ancestor Abraham and chose one of his sons through whom the covenant might be ratified that he might be his God and that of his descendants after him.

Muhammad is the first non-Jewish prophet sent to all of mankind. Woah! That's quite tough. As if that is not enough, he is also the last. So he is the first and last non-Jewish prophet sent to all of mankind. The prophet of Islam is quite smart. Smarter than I actually thought of him, after all; what is stopping a Chinese an Indian, an African or people of any nationality from making the same claim, so yes, he has to be the last.

Yawns!!

Like I said earlier, if the Chinese man, Indian, African has been foretold, we would have to follow.

ISelectMySins:


This is quite tough bro. Very, very distasteful to handle. He is not. Muhammad distorted earlier revelations and has made God a liar. The jokes is on you, though.

The Joke is rather on you bro, you are the one that find it difficult to accept the word of God because you find it distasteful. I know it's painful because you want to believe the Jesus died for our Sin mantra. If you want more prophecy I'll give you more.

Jesus told them the kingdom of God will be taken away from them and given to a nation that will produce it's fruits for a reason.

ISelectMySins:


For the sake of argument. The chosen one In Isaiah is actually Jonah son of Amittai.

For the sake of argument, not all Jewish prophets were sent to their own people; some were sent to non-Jewish nations.

Jonah was to travel to Assyria by sea. He took God's words, a message of warning, to non-Jewish people. He is also a prophet. This is the first time that it was put on record that a Jewish prophet ministered to the ends of the earth - to non-Jewish people because God instructed him to, so if God sends warnings to non-Jews (who live very far away and can be likened to be the ends of the earth) through the mouth of his servants who are Jews, why should we think that Isaiah wasn't referring to one of the Jewish prophet whom God would instruct to carry his message to non-Jews? Why do we have to think that God sends Jewish prophets only to the Jews? After-all, Nineveh is a non Jewish territory quite far from Israel and Jonah is Jewish, and God sends a message to the ends of the earth through the mouth of a Jews. Do you get me?

Why do we have to think Isaiah was referring to a non-Jews taking God's word to the ends of the earth if God also uses Jews to do the same? If God intends that non-Jews would hear his message through whomever he chooses, why should we assume that the verse is a specific allusion to Muhammad? My friend, how far?

You don't need to go to all these Jonah, Ezekiel.

The only 2 candidates for that prophecy as at today is Jesus or Muhammad.

Because those are the two their followers claim have something to do with the Gentiles and bring new laws.

Jesus said he was not sent to the Gentiles.

The only easy way out of this for you is to claim the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled so we can move on.

Qasim6:


You don't need to go to all these Jonah, Ezekiel.

The only 2 candidates for that prophecy as at today is Jesus or Muhammad.

Because those are the two their followers claim have something to do with the Gentiles and bring new laws.

Jesus said he was not sent to the Gentiles.

The only easy way out of this for you is to claim the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled so we can move on.

You still don't get me. What I am saying is that it could be neither of them. The prophecy is addressed to a specific person. When looked more closely, Jesus satisfies the condition of the chosen servant because he is a Jews. Mohammed isn't. The prophet Isaiah could have called the chosen prophet an outsider, a gentile prophet, a on-Jews, or something to that effect that signifies that he is not an Israelite but he didn't. If he did, then sincere followers of the bible would have agreed with you.

You will agree as well as I do that Isaiah is not a prophet that was sent to mankind. He lived in Judah and preached exclusively to his people the Jews (in the book of Kings and Isaiah, you can read about how God used him to prophecy the defeat of the Assyrians causing an angel of God to slaughter 185, 000 foot soldiers in one day), so if he was going to prophecy about a chosen prophet that is non-Jewish, he'd say it clearly. His prophecy is about his people, God's punishment and promises for them.

It's just like a mathematics professor talking about a concept in a mathematics class and someone takes some words in his lessons and applies it to astronomy or physics because they are similar or interchangeable. Just satisfying the conditions of a specific prophecy doesn't mean the prophecy is talking with reference to you that is why I had to use Jonah to contradict your claims. Jonah was called, a chosen servant so to speak, to preach to a people whose language he didn't understand, a people far away who are non Jewish. Since this is a prophecy about a chosen servant sent to preach to the ends of the earth not just to the Jewish people, then for the sake of argument, Jonah satisfies the conditions too.

If Isaiah were talking about a gentile prophet or an Arabian prophet sent to the people at the ends of the earth, then he would have called him so.

ISelectMySins:


You still don't get me. What I am saying is that it could be neither of them. The prophecy is addressed to a specific person. When looked more closely, Jesus satisfies the condition of the chosen servant because he is a Jews. Mohammed isn't. The prophet Isaiah could have called the chosen prophet an outsider, a gentile prophet, a on-Jews, or something to that effect that signifies that he is not an Israelite but he didn't. If he did, then sincere followers of the bible would have agreed with you.

You will agree as well as I do that Isaiah is not a prophet that was sent to mankind. He lived in Judah and preached exclusively to his people the Jews (in the book of Kings and Isaiah, you can read about how God used him to prophecy the defeat of the Assyrians causing an angel of God to slaughter 185, 000 foot soldiers in one day), so if he was going to prophecy about a chosen prophet that is non-Jewish, he'd say it clearly. His prophecy is about his people, God's punishment and promises for them.

It's just like a mathematics professor talking about a concept in a mathematics class and someone takes some words in his lessons and applies it to astronomy or physics because they are similar or interchangeable. Just satisfying the conditions of a specific prophecy doesn't mean the prophecy is talking with reference to you that is why I had to use Jonah to contradict your claims. Jonah was called, a chosen servant so to speak, to preach to a people whose language he didn't understand, a people far away who are non Jewish. Since this is a prophecy about a chosen servant sent to preach to the ends of the earth not just to the Jewish people, then for the sake of argument, Jonah satisfies the conditions too.

If Isaiah were talking about a gentile prophet or an Arabian prophet sent to the people at the ends of the earth, then he would have called him so.

What are you even talking about?
Did God have convenant with Abraham?
Is Ishmael under that convenant?

Why do you think there can't be non Jewish prophet?

Verse 9 of the prophecy is even talking about how the old things have taken place. Lol

"See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare;

before they spring into being I announce them to you."


Deuteronomy 18:18 is also a prophecy about a non-Israelite Prophet like Moses.

Qasim6:
What are you even talking about? Did God have convenant with Abraham? Is Ishmael under that convenant? Deuteronomy 18:18 is a prophecy about a non-Israelite Prophet like Moses.

Stop lying! Deuteronomy 18 vs 18 says absolutely nothing of what you claim and you know this.

Qasim6:
■ You don't need to go to all these Jonah, Ezekiel. The only 2 candidates for that prophecy as at today is Jesus or Muhammad. Because those are the two their followers claim have something to do with the Gentiles and bring new laws. Jesus said he was not sent to the Gentiles. The only easy way out of this for you is to claim the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled so we can move on.

Why would a God who proclaimed that His only chosen people in the land of men were the people of Israel do an about turn to then focus his attention on the Gentiles — those whom Jesus Christ said were dogs(dogs can fend for themselves whereas sheep can't)?

Don't you see that in your desperate attempt to include Mohammed in a narrative where he should not even feature, you make a liar and a fool of the God of Israel whom you pretend sent out your Mohammed?

P.S. This isn't an attempt to hold brief for any of the commenters on here.

Kobojunkie:
Stop lying! Deuteronomy 18 vs 18 says absolutely nothing of what you claim and you know this.

You can keep crying bro!

Don't fucking tell me to stop lying, you can prove me wrong !

Qasim6:
■ What is your opinion about the prophecy of Isaiah 42? Who do you think is the chosen servant? With the way things eventually played out after that prophecy, there are only two candidates.
Jesus: That claimed he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matthew 15:24. He even told his disciples not to go into the ways of the gentiles not even the Samaritans that are partly Israelites in Matthew 10:5
[s]Muhammad: He claimed to be sent to all mankind and the prophecy is giving us some Arab vibes[/s].

Isaiah 42 could only have been said of Jesus Christ since He was after all sent to the World that was first defined by God, that which concerned His Israel, the very same World that Jesus Christ said He was sent to. Pay attention!

1 “Here is my servant, the one I support. He is the one I have chosen, and I am very pleased with him. I have filled him with my Spirit, and he will bring justice to the nations.
2 He will not cry out or shout or try to make himself heard in the streets.
3 He will not break even a crushed reed. He will not put out even the weakest flame. He will bring true justice.
4 He will not grow weak or give up until he has brought justice to the world. And people in faraway places will hope to receive his teachings.” - Isaiah 42

Here are questions you ought to at least ask after reading the above passage....
● What Justice? - God's Judgement which He outlined in His Law of Moses beginning in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26
● What Nations? - The Nations indicated by God in the same chapters above... those who had close dealings with His people, Israel.
● What does it mean that He would not break even a crushed reed?
● What does it mean that he would not put out even the weakest flame?
● What does it mean that He would not grow weak or give up until he has brought about justice to the world?

Qasim6:
■You can keep crying bro! Don't fucking tell me to stop lying, you can prove me wrong !

But there is nothing to prove since what you told there is an obvious lie. Deuteronomy 18 which you quoted clearly states that the Prophet would be from among the people — an Israelite. But you lied.

14 “You will force the other nations out of your land. They listen to people who use magic and try to tell the future. But the Lord your God will not let you do these things.
15 The Lord your God will send to you a prophet. This prophet will come from among your own people, and he will be like me. You must listen to him.
16 God will send you this prophet because that is what you asked him to do. When you were gathered together at Mount Horeb, you became frightened and said, ‘Don’t let us hear the voice of the Lord our God again! Don’t let us see that great fire or we will die!’
17 “The Lord said to me, ‘What they ask for is good.
18 I will send them a prophet like you. This prophet will be one of their own people. I will tell him what he must say, and he will tell the people everything I command.
19 This prophet will speak for me, and I will punish anyone who refuses to listen to my commands.’ - Deuteronomy 18 vs 14 - 19

Kobojunkie:
Isaiah 42 could only have been said of Jesus Christ since He was after all sent to the World that was first defined by God, that which concerned His Israel, the very same World that Jesus Christ said He was sent to. Pay attention!
Here are questions you ought to at least ask after reading the above passage....
● What Justice? - God's Judgement which He outlined in His Law of Moses beginning in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26
● What Nations? - The Nations indicated by God in the same chapters above... those who had close dealings with His people, Israel.
● What does it mean that He would not break even a crushed reed?
● What does it mean that he would not put out even the weakest flame?
● What does it mean that He would not grow weak or give up until he has brought about justice to the world?

Unfortunately for you, your Jesus said he was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

He even make sure to tell his Disciples not to go into the ways of the gentiles nor the Samaritans.

Joke on you. Man worshipper!

Qasim6:
■ Unfortunately for you, your Jesus said he was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of Israel.
■ He even make sure to tell his Disciples not to go into the ways of the gentiles nor the Samaritans.
Joke on you. Man worshipper!

You are not paying attention at all. There is absolutely nothing unfortunate about Jesus Christ being sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel. This since the same Isaiah told you that people in faraway lands would be waiting to get His teachings.

2. Wait a minute... Samaritans are Israelites. Were you not aware of this? The reason Jesus Christ did not send His disciples to the Samaritans had to do with something that the prophets said regarding the gathering of the scattered. Ephraim and Manasseh — the tribes which the Samaritans were associated with —were considered separate from the Jewish tribes — Benjamin, Judah, and Levi. You have to read the book for yourself to understand much of what is written in it.

3. I am afraid your ignorance is the joke here.

Kobojunkie:
You are not paying attention at all. There is absolutely nothing unfortunate about Jesus Christ being sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel. This since the same Isaiah told you that people in faraway lands would be waiting to get His teachings.

2. Wait a minute... Samaritans are Israelites. Were you not aware of this? The reason Jesus Christ did not send His disciples to the Samaritans had to do with something that the prophets said regarding the gathering of the scattered. Ephraim and Manasseh — the tribes which the Samaritans were associated with —were considered separate from the Jewish tribes — Benjamin, Judah, and Levi. You have to read the book for yourself to understand much of what is written in it.

3. I am afraid your ignorance is the joke here.

Alaye just keep quiet
Na u go tell me who Samaritans are

Samaritans are not fully Israelites, they are partly Israelites.

Did your Jesus forget his mission?

Why was he saying he was only sent to the Israelites? Or probably you don't understand simple sentence again?

Do you need holy ghost to decode that message?

Kobojunkie:
You are not paying attention at all. There is absolutely nothing unfortunate about Jesus Christ being sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel. This since the same Isaiah told you that people in faraway lands would be waiting to get His teachings.

2. Wait a minute... Samaritans are Israelites. Were you not aware of this? The reason Jesus Christ did not send His disciples to the Samaritans had to do with something that the prophets said regarding the gathering of the scattered. Ephraim and Manasseh — the tribes which the Samaritans were associated with —were considered separate from the Jewish tribes — Benjamin, Judah, and Levi. You have to read the book for yourself to understand much of what is written in it.

3. I am afraid your ignorance is the joke here.

Why does David Hundeyin hate you so much?

always mentioning your name when saying derogatory things about Nairaland on Twitter. 🤔🤔🤔

GGIA:
■ Why does David Hundeyin hate you so much? always mentioning your name when saying derogatory things about Nairaland on Twitter. 🤔🤔🤔

I don't know who that person is nor am I on Twitter to begin with. Are you certain I am the one he keeps referring to? I don't remember ever engaging anyone with a similar-sounding moniker here on Nairaland.

Qasim6:
■ Alaye just keep quiet. Na u go tell me who Samaritans are. Samaritans are not fully Israelites, they are partly Israelites.
■ Did your Jesus forget his mission? Why was he saying he was only sent to the Israelites? Or probably you don't understand simple sentence again?
■ Do you need holy ghost to decode that message?

Which one is fully Israelites and which one be partly israelites again for crying out loud? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

2. Your question does not make any sense! He told you that His Father, YHWH, the God of Israel, sent Him only to the Lost sheep of Israel. Why are you having a hard time grasping this for Pete's sake?

3. Well, this is merely a case of lack of human language comprehension here. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Kobojunkie:
I don't know who that person is nor am I on Twitter to begin with. Are you certain I am the one he keeps referring to? I don't remember ever engaging anyone with a similar-sounding moniker here on Nairaland.

good day ma.
Is your mail now active?