₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
You are just speaking form both sides of the mouth! Jesus did cancelled that law you brought. That was why the Jews were angry at him after the verse.

A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.” Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” Matthew 15:11-12

Abeg no capping!

Your reasoning is faulty!

Peter said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” “Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. “Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.” Matthew 15:13-20

Something the devil or his messengers would not do; Muhammad claims God does.

So who is now the Devil? It seems the Book of Revelation that talks of a false prophet is actually very, very right on this one.

Let's say God called a prophet, Ola, to gave an order that, "XYZ is wrong" and should not be eaten. Now, as you know, prophets are more than just messengers or people who give orders. They have a level or have been given a level of authority as servants of the Most High God. Now, let's say God sends another of his messenger, Ade, to say that "Only XY is wrong, God the Almighty has made a leave for Z."

If that were the case, wouldn't that undermine Ola's authority as one of his messengers? Did God call him to be one of his messenger just to belittle him? Did God call Ade as a messenger just so he could glorify him above any of his messengers who came before him? Is time supposed to be a great decider of God's righteous judgment? I am not even talking about how the effects and perceptions of waivers, leaves, and different messages on the people (who are supposed to receive the message) affects them; and how it poke holes, deep holes, so many holes on the divine government and character.

I answered you earlier about Jesus's statement. He re-interpreted the Law; he did not counter the fine points of the Law. Describing one Law in a somewhat negative light does not counter it. In fact, Jesus did not contradict the law of God or give counter-orders from the same God that allegedly spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush. Christianity in its entirety believes that he fulfilled the Law of God as given to Moses, not counter or make leave for it. There is a world of difference, a heaven and earth difference actually between the two. And this position or what the Christian community would eventually come to consensus as being the case might be very wrong, too. One cannot appeal to Christianity to defend Islamic truth. Appeal to what you believe!

So far on this thread, you have only used diversionary tactics using Christianity to bolster a claim you have not stated. Please state your position. Thank you.

Today is a good day. No one has refuted me successfully.

Ojuntana:
Herod of course!!

It might be Herod if John had sent his disciples to Jesus while he was in prison. I doubt he had so much freedom to entertain guest in prison because the gospel account does not hint that he was. Which gospel account do you have in mind?

And even if that were the case, that does not prove you right. I would have to re-read the whole piece again. Please pardon me, its been a while, but I would appreciate if you could expound on your stance again.

AntiisIam:
I'm coming

AntiChristian, you, and I were in a beer-palour flexing our lives, trying to forget our sorrow after a very hard day labour, drinking burukutu, Legend beer, Stout, Trophy, and more; eating catfishes, throwing banters here and there, insulting everyone we could insult, and disturbing the whole neighbourhood with loud music as if the whole world revolve around us.

Then all of sudden we saw someone - we saw a very, very beautiful creature, a spectacle to behold; a classic specimen of God's wonderful handiwork approaching us.

I quickly tapped your shoulders - Ah, see! See! Look! Look! Don't you see!

What! What! You replied.

See, he is coming, he is coming! Look at that guy!

*As if I had never seen a man before*.

Then we strained our necks and looked, and behold, we all saw a well-built, handsome, cute-looking young man. He seems to be the most handsome man we have ever seen or even dreamed of. This man is just so drop-dead gorgeous. Hehehe! So we saw a man who goes by the name Divine Sovereignty. We saw him coming. Approaching us.

Bouncing. Jumping. Exuding the aura, confidence, and charisma of a fulfilled man. Posing like a warrior! Walking the way vibrant, energetic young men would normally walk. He doesn't seem to send anybody. See him tinkling his ornaments! Feeling like who he actually is, a great king.

We saw this guy and could not help but stare and stare. We just continued to stare until he came closer. As he came closer, we could see that he is walking with dainty steps, craning his elegant necks, posing, dancing, jogging, and coming towards us, jogging towards us with his head. He seems to be crazy.

What the heck we thought. What a gory sight. We hadn't seen a beautiful man walking with his head before. O Divine Sovereignty, what is wrong! What in the world is going on? Why approach us with your head? What is the problem?

Then he sighed and said it is no fault of his. That they had to turn him upside down, on his head, and so he accepted it that way.

But how did they turn you on your head? AntiChristian blurted.

They said I can do everything if I will. That I am sovereign. They even said that it doesn't matter that I can do things that are incompatible with logic like making a round-triangle or a rock too heavy that I can't lift. They said everything is possible if I only will. That I can do things that are not in consonance with my nature.

Uhn, that shouldn't be the reason you walk on your head, AntiChristian replied quickly.

I had to, Divine Sovereignty, replied back. The implication is blasphemous, and as you know, I live in reverence of God; I cannot continue to walk on my feet.

They said I can do things that are inconsistent with my very nature: one of the arguers even argued that I can dish out orders and counter-orders (if I so will) that can potentially ruin my government. They said I can do things that even the Devil, an incurably evil and vile being, whom I created, would never do. One even said that I could kill myself if I so willed, that I am the sovereign one, so I had to walk on my head.

That's right. You did the right thing. I replied very, very quickly. Never you walk on your feet again. Farewell Divine Sovereignty! Farewell. I love you so-so much. I wish an epithet would be inscribed on your grave which reads - The man who walked on his head. I understand, the blasphemy of some must have constrained you to be turned upside down. You'd do just well walking on your head.

I am done storytelling. Okay, tell me the truth, do you love how I tell stories? Does it sound interesting to you?

Let me ask you the more important question: Should Divine Sovereignty walk on his feet again?

AntiChristian:
Jesus said:
A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it. Matthew 15:11

Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him; but the things that come out of a man, these are what defile him. Mark 7:15

You said:


Baldwretch quoted:



So how do we reconcile all these?

I must admit your objection is very sound.

However, it is still a red-herring because, as I can see, your objection is a diversionary tactics.

If I said to you that "AntiChristian, stop being a bs, it is not by fasting that you can actually please God, but by doing good deeds and living in fear before your God,", if I said that you you, am I in anyway saying that fasting is not good or is not necessary or requiredof you to please God? No, of course, not.

That appears to be what Christ is saying. Jesus did not give a counter-order. Did he? No of course, he did not. The words of Christ must not be seen as a counter-order; it is simply a reinterpretation of the intents of the law.

Yes, Jesus said it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you (which, for example, appears to contradict the law's demands of not eating ceremonially unclean animals) but he did not replace his words with something else. This clearly shows that he simply reinterpreted the intents of the law, not contradict it. People who give counter-orders usually, not always, make a replacement or a prescription.

And besides, the law never said that what comes out of your mouth does not defile you, or does it say that? In fact, the law agrees with Jesus' interpretation that what comes out of your mouth defiles you. Clearly, it does. That is the central teaching of Christ at the time. The first is obvious, but the latter has not been elucidated very much. If we are not to call God's name in vain, then certainly, even the law agrees that what comes out of your mouth can actually defile you which appears to be what Christ is saying. Haha, gotcha!

And again, Jesus lived among the Jews and understood how much they prioritized external religion, nitpicking little details and abandoning the very essentials of the faith. In one instance, he calls them out because they were careful to tithe every dime and nickel, but ignored the more essential teachings of the law. Did he ask them not to tithe because they neglected weightier doctrines of the law? NO! You have to understand that Jesus had to speak in what I see as a shade of negative to reorient his hearers and to magnify what he thinks is the positive - on what is chiefly required of them. The application is easy here. Positives used to magnify the below positive with descriptors which appears to make below positive seem unnecessary and irrelevant just so the positive can be seen in a different light, but both are required.

They, as well as Jesus, know what it says on eating some defiled things, so when Christ made that statement, it wasn't with the intent of countering what had been laid down or making ceremonially unclean animals look okayish. It was supposed to educate and reorient the hearers on God's holy internal demands which transcends the externals, which, by the way, was also required. It was a sermon on personal holiness, a sermon on a lifestyle that is supposed to trump and that actually trumps external religion. When two things are weighed side by side, the weightier object would make the less weighty object seem like nothing. That is what was at play here, not an abrogation, a contradiction, or something to that effects. There is a difference!

As per this post

And this one too

https://www.nairaland.com/8306103/torah-supposed-benefit-all-mankind

The cat is till in the bag. Who would bail (abi na bell) it. All my Friends mentioned here, your opinion is needed:

LegalWolf Vanessa7 AntiChristian Empiree, Rash4ductluv, BabaHeekmat, aekymbahd, motayoayinde, drlateef, Thatfairguy1, MrCodeSolo , Hisbah21, atsleepboy1 , Lordmoh , OBALOLA55, x123xlolls , Lukuluku69 , mhmsadyq, Ibsaq , Herkeym001 , Sulasa07 , hakeemhakeem , abduljabbar4 ,olaalekan ,Friend22 , uthlaw , Exc2000 , AbuTwins ,Akhirastriver ,Akinbahm , Sino , KayB , youngdroly , jaggabban , ukeleh , Realismailakabir , Bami8064 Greatgr , Gaskiyamagana , compton11, Alfarouq , MrCodeSolo Satmaniac saintHot, drlateef, Donkmore Akinbahm , IMEI , FATHAT , talk2hb1 , iamrealdeji , Encyclopedia1 , SWATMan rolams aheeqilmaktoom , Bintdawood , Flanker , Raheeqilmaktoom , rolams ,honesttalk21 , Negroid001 , Nvestor02 , Coolsat, iamrealdeji madridguy Almunjid MohammadSAW , STRI1 Explore2xmore satmaniac Ohyoudidnt , 4islam, ThatFairGuy1 BroOptimist. Bakrabas. Musa95 Ibrahimlagosian Explore2xmore
hakeemhakeem ItsReal correctguy101 Qasim6 youngdroly Bliss52 Qasim6 truthday Almunjid hayzedibd ahmedio2017
MightySparrow SIRTee15 ANTIlSLAM innotutorial FxMasterz advocatejare Rashduct4luv AbuTwins Lukgaf

Let's talk!

RealityKings1:
One important thing to note is that

Islam developed roughly 600 years after Christianity. Christianity originated in the 1st century CE, while Islam developed in the 7th century CE

I do not dispute what you just said.

Ojuntana:
FxMasterz and Baldwretch. Well done for your most considerate debate. It is always good to see two Christians debating theology in a cerebral and enlightening way.

I must however agree with FxMasterz on the issue if John the Baptist. Jesus Christ was condemning the apparent disbelief in John by sending his disciples to Jesus on account of Jesus not coming to rescue him. Thus, Jesus was saying that even though among the prophets before him, John was the greatest (because he was the only prophet who did not see death and saw Jesus in the flesh when he came back as John the Baptist), yet he's the least in the kingdom of God (because of his unbelief).

The kingdom of heaven or Kingdom of God being referred to is the coming Kingdom to be established by Christ in His second coming. The inhabitants are the spirit of humans who believed and accepted Jesus and his message.

Thank you

Not coming to rescue him from who? Herod?

The second objection is built on a faulty premise that Jesus called John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven because he was the only one who saw Jesus before he died. NO! John, as Jesus's forerunner, had been mentioned by name by the prophet. Isiah the prophet mentioned a prophet who would clear the way before the fearsome day of the Lord. Malachi identified the forerunner as the prophet Elijah. Jesus said John came in the power and spirit of Elijah. This is simple syllogism.

The third objection is obvious . There is nothing in the passage that says that the Kingdom of Heaven is a coming kingdom. That conjecture is your own making, lol. The passage hints otherwise because it compares the earthly and the heavenly. It must be then that the Kingdom of Heaven being talked about existed at the time Christ said it.

This post is an addendum to a response I made to a user yesterday.

This is his post:

AntiChristian:
That being said, God did forbid many things for the previous generations that he permitted for the later generations!
Allah says of Jesus in the Qur'an what means "And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me. (Qur'an 3:50)
And Alcohol was permitted sometime during the Prophet's time till it was later forbidden totally!
So there's no case here.

And this is my response to him:

Baldwretch:
This is simply untrue. What this means is that God can give a law to one prophet and another prophet would come to nullify it in the name of God. No, just no, what a very, very blasphemous thing to say. Even evil spirits never leave humans at the command of another evil spirit except by some higher authority or power. Doing so would screw the Devil's reign and break the order and hierarchy of power. God would not screw his glorious reign by giving orders and counter-orders. Muhammad is a big fraud, period. That is not how God works. That is not how he works. God does not make permissible to a prophet what he has forbidden to other prophets prior. Seriously, you are in for a shocker. Not a single Jewish prophet who came after Moses have made a claim to that effect - that God has now made this-and-that lawful that he didn't make in the past. Dangerous, dangerous teaching! Poisonous poison!

What was made permissible for Christians was after Christ death, not during his lifetime. During his life-time, Christ did not say you can now do this-and-that that Moses. the lawgiver, forbade earlier. He never said that. In fact, in the Gospels, he said that he has not come to abolish the laws of Moses or the writings of the prophets but to fulfill them. In another passage, he said, not one jot, one title can be abolished from God's law until everything is fulfilled. There is a world of difference, my friend.

So, the idea that God might give orders (to be obeyed) and then counter-order through another prophet, not the same prophet, not only argues poor judgment, but it shows great depth in profanity if you think about it carefully. Any one who calls himself a prophet, claims that earlier prophets or their revelations (given to them) is actually from God and then goes ahead to counter some of the fine point they raised, or raises objections about their revelations or makes leave (by God) for certain provisions to be done away with in the laws thereof is definitely not of God.

If there is one thing we can learn about that incurably evil being called the Devil or Satan is that... Well, if there is just one thing to learn about how he exercises dominion in his realm and how much of a success his reign has been as a result, then we can learn a lot, giving us a glimpse, a tiny glimpse into the divine government itself.

Let's say I cast an evil spell on you that hypnotized you because you wronged me for some reasons. Furthermore, let's say that the evil spell was effected by Demon XY who is actually the spirit prince of a particular kingdom - let's say the Kingdom of Nigeria. Let's assume I had apologized to you in person and that after much persuasion by your humble self, your immediate family, a crowd of people I so much respect and think highly of, I still would not yield. I just do not give a Bleep about you. I must get my pound of flesh.

Then, all your family members did a derisive gotcha on me, snapping their fingers in succession, throwing dust into the air, and capping it off with that ugly smirks - Don't worry motherfucker, you will see shege-banza too!

Furthermore, let's assume that your family members visit another spirit prince, the spirit prince of the Kingdom of Denmark, imploring him to do two things for them: first, he should make the first spell invalid and then met out a double, nay a triple - triple as much of the evil spell I had cast earlier on their sibling, which is you.

Then, what would happen?

The pleas, sighs, persuasions, and tears, wouldn't be here. The tears would be unending and long. The conversation would go like this:

"Please, please, please my lord." and he would reply, "NO!"

It would be one sad, terrible, doleful echo chamber of Please's and No's overlapping intermittently like frogs croak during the rain.

."NO, I can't. We don't do that in this space. Go back to the spirit prince of Nigeria," he would respond every fucking time.

And then, a family member by some shrewdness makes a very good suggestion to the Prince: "Okay sir," he says, "we are ready to make a good offer - whatever you want - we make a billion of such-and-such as offerings."

"NO!"

"How about a quadrillion?" your sibling asks.

"NO!"

Like a petulant young child, the sibling goes: "Okay fine, fine, what do you want then?"

"NO! I want nothing!" He says. "In this space," he adds "the first order is usually the last order."

"You said, what?"

"There is no disruption in the equilibrium of power here. In this space, the last order is usually the subsisting order."

All siblings looking at the ceiling and looking at themselves wondering how it would all end.

Yes, I made this all up to make a point. Apparently, these spirits have learnt something through the millennium, through the aeons that mankind is still grappling to understand. The lessons from the story is left to the reader to decipher and how it actually plays out in the divine government. The point is, God almost never gives an order or a commandment and then makes a leave or give counter-orders that make his first pronouncement invalid, or of no effect. Heaven and earth would wash off, would pass away as Jesus said, but not one word from God's precious commandments would ever fade. Seems like something a false prophet would say God said.

Someone is already asking, what are you talking about - what is the order and the counter-order. Let's have it

Okay, this is the first order to the world of mankind:

Baldwretch:
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:

9 “Of all the marine animals, these are ones you may use for food. You may eat anything from the water if it has both fins and scales, whether taken from salt water or from streams. 10 But you must never eat animals from the sea or from rivers that do not have both fins and scales. They are detestable to you. This applies both to little creatures that live in shallow water and to all creatures that live in deep water. 11 They will always be detestable to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. 12 Any marine animal that does not have both fins and scales is detestable to you.

46 “These are the instructions regarding land animals, birds, marine creatures, and animals that scurry along the ground. 47 By these instructions you will know what is unclean and clean, and which animals may be eaten and which may not be eaten.”

And this is the second order to the world of mankind:

AntiChristian:
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water-game and its use for food – for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel…” [al-Maidah 5:96]. So with this all animals that live only in the sea are permissible to eat.

Both cannot be true. How they contradict each other is pretty obvious and needs no explanation.

When an acclaimed prophet gives counter-orders supposedly from God, you know beyond reasonable doubt that he is everything a good prophet is not; it seems something a false prophet would say that God said. God would not screw his beautiful reign by making everyone rich (because he still needs suffering and pain in the world) anymore than he would give an order and then counter what he had said earlier or make a leave or something. NO! NO! Even the devil doesn't. This is all shades of false prophet written over it. Ah, God gives orders and counter-orders, if he so wills. NO! That is turning God's sovereignty on its head.

In fact, confirming a prophet through the mouth of another prophet would create perceived imbalance in power and authority that is never intended. It almost never happens in heaven where God reigns supreme; it would never happen on earth too. It definitely never happened! The idea that a prophet has been sent to confirm another prophet, or a prophet has been sent to confirm a revelation or a covenant given before him to begin with is a smooth-tongued, nothing but a well-crafted devil's lie.

Please change my view!

@AntiChristian, your attention is needed here too.

I would appreciate if you answer both threads.

AntiChristian:
No need to laugh here! I don't believe in your Torah just as you don't believe in mine! However where we differ is that i believe in what was revealed to Moses and other Prophets in their original forms without alterations as we have it today!

Don't run. Talk to Daddy. Let's talk. I want to see things from your own perspectives. Lol.

I want to talk about the alterations you talked about. Why are text adulterated? Why do we have altered text? Okay, so the idea that a text might be corrupted could be the case when those who are supposed to be custodians of the text have strayed so much from God that they no longer regard him or his word. It is very possible. We are talking of some miserable sinner here. A sinner whose ways are not right with God.

Depending on what the chapter and verse is talking about, the distortion might just be another attempt to whitewash the truth or to promote Jewish interest at the detriment of others, or it might be to promote an inclusive or an exclusive agenda as it relates to one of God's laws. Yes, I agree, it is very possible.

But are the sinners' intent to chiefly promote an inclusive or an exclusive agenda when they distort God's law? For inclusive agenda, everything is permissible, no holds barred. God has not forbidden this-or-that. God has now permitted this-and-that. God did not forbid this-and-that. I hope you get the point. Absolute permission!

For exclusive agenda, from the word exclusion, not everything is permissible. God has, in fact, forbidden this-or-that. You are not allowed to do this-and-that. Permission for this-and-that has not been granted. You get the gist, my friend, some things have been excluded for your pleasure and you are not permitted to do them.

It doesn't look like the sinners who distort or alter God's word would pursue an exclusive agenda especially when it has to do with what they might be tempted to consume or do, what they fancy, or what they want. After all, no man wants to emasculate himself. If men can help it, everything should be permissible to them. They want to be permitted to do what their eyes is set upon, what tempts them, what their desires yearn for. That is why, definitionally, he is a sinner - to break the yoke, chains, and fetters that the LORD GOD has placed upon him; to remove, as much as he can, every restrictions that inhibit his freedom.

Now look at these again.

One scripture says - Yes, everything in the sea is permitted to be eaten.
Another says - no, not everything, there are some restrictions.

Would a corrupted text pursue an inclusive or an exclusive agenda? It would definitely pursue an inclusive agenda where everything is permitted. What we have in the bible is an exclusive agenda. Does it make sense that men would restrict and emasculate themselves in an attempt to corrupt God's word (by making non-permissible what God already permitted)? If we have to concede for the same of argument that one has to be untrue because they cannot both be true, would the original Torah, if we were able to somehow find it, show that it is the first or the second scripture that is corrupted? Would the original Torah, if found, pursue an inclusive or an exclusive agenda? Does it look like the Torah as we have it today pursue an inclusive agenda where everything is permitted. If the prohibition is against drinking alcohol, for instance, then I might have to concede on this one that the bible pursues an inclusive agenda and the Quran pursues an exclusive agenda, but I would not argue with the same train of thought. Can you tell me one thing, just one, that the Torah permits, but the Quran forbids besides alcohol?

You know the truth. You choose to believe hook, line, and sinker what Muhammad said because he said it. You know I tried to talk you out of that sometimes back. You know! You know in your heart of hearts that talking of a nonexistent original Torah is just another doublespeak. You only pretend to have an opinion, you don't actually have one.

AntiChristian:
That being said, God did forbid many things for the previous generations that he permitted for the later generations!
Allah says of Jesus in the Qur'an what means "And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me. (Qur'an 3:50)
And Alcohol was permitted sometime during the Prophet's time till it was later forbidden totally!
So there's no case here.

This is simply untrue. What this means is that God can give a law to one prophet and another prophet would come to nullify it in the name of God. No, just no, what a very, very blasphemous thing to say. Even evil spirits never leave humans at the command of another evil spirit except by some higher authority or power. Doing so would screw the Devil's reign and break the order and hierarchy of power. God would not screw his glorious reign by giving orders and counter-orders. Muhammad is a big fraud, period. That is not how God works. That is not how he works. God does not make permissible to a prophet what he has forbidden to other prophets prior. Seriously, you are in for a shocker. Not a single Jewish prophet who came after Moses have made a claim to that effect - that God has now made this-and-that lawful that he didn't make in the past. Dangerous, dangerous teaching! Poisonous poison!

What was made permissible for Christians was after Christ death, not during his lifetime. During his life-time, Christ did not say you can now do this-and-that that Moses. the lawgiver, forbade earlier. He never said that. In fact, in the Gospels, he said that he has not come to abolish the laws of Moses or the writings of the prophets but to fulfill them. In another passage, he said, not one jot, one title can be abolished from God's law until everything is fulfilled. There is a world of difference, my friend.

AntiChristian:
What evidence do you have in the Bible that any law was sent to the whole world?
Even Jesus was send to Israel! Same as Moses! And most laws in the Bible keep mentioning Israel.....

Sending prophets to Israel does not mean that they weren't sent to the whole world. I actually asked a question in the Torah thread. If the Jews had succeeded in ancient warfare and expanded in all directions, having an empire that spanned thousand of kilometers in either directions, with many subjugated territories under them, wouldn't they proselytize these people for God and use the Torah as the rule of faith and daily living? Would the Torah exclude these territories, making its laws inapplicable to them? Is there anything in the Torah that said otherwise. If the bible verse I shared just before now says that foreigners are also subject to the same laws and decrees as the ancient Israelis are, can we really say that the Torah is not supposed to be a guide for all of mankind? Is it that difficult to understand?

AntiChristian:
No need to laugh here! I don't believe in your Torah just as you don't believe in mine! However where we differ is that i believe in what was revealed to Moses and other Prophets in their original forms without alterations as we have it today!

Delusional. Oh so why is the current Torah adulterated, or the text altered as you say? To what end? To scheme out what noble agenda?

Is to streamline our choice of all sea foods? Is it that in the original unadulterated Torah, permission was made to eat all seafood? Do you really have an idea of why people adulterate text? On why they alter text? Is it to promote an inclusive or an exclusive agenda? You are not making any sense. If we don't have the original Torah in our possession as you claim, how can we be sure that Muhammad accurately confirms the revelation that has been sent before him (the Torah)? Remember, we don't have original, redacted copies in our possession to check-mark him. The Muslim are generally of the opinion that Muhammad is right because he said so even though they hate to admit it. Makes sense? No sir, it doesn't.

AntiChristian:
That being said, God did forbid many things for the previous generations that he permitted for the later generations!

This is simply not true. A gross error.

Yes, God forbade things for previous generations that he permitted in latter generations, but that only happens on the condition that the just requirements for the aforesaid thing has been met and thoroughly satisfied.

AntiChristian:
Allah says of Jesus in the Qur'an what means "And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me. (Qur'an 3:50)

And Alcohol was permitted sometime during the Prophet's time till it was later forbidden totally!

The Quran cannot be used to prove that the Quran is right.

So sorry about that. It doesn't have that authority. Everything the Quran says is not true until we can prove it with extant copies of the original Torah that was missing and unaltered. Besides, God does not permit what he forbids until the intents and consequences behind such prohibitions are duly met and satisfied.

AntiChristian:
More so, those laws you claimed includes laws such as this below directed to Israelites and not the world as you claimed:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

What evidence do you have in the Bible that any law was sent to the whole world?
Even Jesus was send to Israel! Same as Moses! And most laws in the Bible keep mentioning Israel.....

I made a post sometimes ago about the Torah being a guide for all of mankind for all ages and not a single Muslim responded. You are now expecting me to reiterate my earlier position in this thread that the Torah is supposed to be a guide for all the whole world. There is not a single passage in the Torah that says that its instruction is supposed to be applicable to only the Israelis, and not to conquered territories their right hand posses or to the world of mankind in general. The case of a rebellious son is not supposed to be understood as an Israeli only thing. Remember, one of the Ten Commandments is to honor one's parents. The case in question here is a clear violation of this express commandment. In fact, showing deep respect for one's parents is a recurring theme in the bible so this is not fairly cultural.

Numbers 15:15-16 New Living Translation (NLT): Native-born Israelite and foreigners are equal before the LORD and are subject to the same decrees. This is a permanent law for you, to be observed from generation to generation.

This is clear. Now, you might argue that these foreign born are those who choose to live with the Israelis, but that does not solve the difficulty.

I don't know what I was doing on Quora yesterday. . I just found myself there.

There, I stumbled on a very beautiful opinion piece by one Quoran, a Muslim, who is of the opinion that Muhammad is very much literate - can read and write!

Of course, if Muhammad is literate then the implications is multifaceted and huge! Implications upon implications upon implications! But ah, not just that, it seems we have a multifaceted implication as tall or even taller than Mount Everest. He had better not be literate. . I would not tell you the implications.

I would put his opinion piece in a quoted form (with some edits).

Since this thread falls apart when the word ummi is translated and understood correctly, I would say that (for now) I do not have an opinion on the subject until I hear from other Muslim scholars what they think of the word (and this arguments) because I cannot make head or tail of the Arabic language.

So here we go:

Masud:
Prophet Muhammad, according to the Quran, didn’t have any concrete knowledge of the scriptures before he got his revelation; hence he is called an Ummi. The Arabic word Ummi means illiterate in a different sense than translated and implied. It means the person doesn’t have any real knowledge of the divine scripture, or have not been given one; it doesn't mean that he doesn’t know how to read or write as popularly believed.

The word (ummi) has been used in the Quran in a number of verses. The following:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered (ummi) Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel in their possession. He directs them to righteousness, and deters them from evil, and allows for them all good things, and prohibits for them wickedness, and unloads the burdens and the shackles that are upon them. Those who believe in him, and respect him, and support him, and follow the light that came down with him— these are the successful."

-(Al Qur'an 7:157)

Many translations of the Qur'an have wrongly translated the word 'ummi' as an illiterate person, but a quick analysis of various Qur'anic verses where the same word 'ummi' is used shows that the word does not mean an illiterate. The correct meaning is a gentile or someone who has not received a scripture.

Let us take a look at the following verse:

Say to those who were given the Scripture, as well as the 'ummiyoon', "Have you submitted?"

-(Al Qur'an 3:20)

In this verse, God commanded Muhammad to invite those who received a scripture (the Jews and Christians) as well as the ummiyoon (plural of ummi) to submit to God.

If we use the wrong interpretation used by Muslims interpreters today of the word ummi - of one who cannot read or write - we would have the following translation:

"Say to those who received a scripture as well as those who cannot read or write to submit"

It is clear that this is an inaccurate translation for the following reasons:

1- The opposite of "those who received a scripture" is "those who did not receive a scripture" and not those who cannot read or write.

2- If we assume that the word 'ummi' as used here means an illiterate person, then this begs the question: Is God commanding prophet Muhammad to call to submission those who received a scripture and those who are illiterate among the rest? What of those who did not receive a scripture and can read/write? Once again, this is very irrational and does not make any sense.

If he is required to call to submission those who received a scripture (probably the Jews and the Christians) then it stands to reason that the other parallel must be those who have not received a scripture, not those who can neither read nor write.

Also, let us read :

"It is He who sent among the unlettered a messenger from themselves; reciting His revelations to them, and purifying them, and teaching them the Scripture and wisdom; although they were in obvious error before that."

-(Al Qur'an 62:2)

Once again, if we assume that the word 'ummi' means an illiterate, then that would mean that God has in fact sent Muhammad only to those who cannot read or write!

It is quite obvious that God would send a messenger with a scripture to all who did not receive a scripture, and not to only those who cannot read and write since there are those who are very much literate but did not receive a scripture.

Now let us read the following verses where we are given even more conclusive evidence that the word 'ummi' does not mean an illiterate person:

"And among them are 'ummiyoon' who do not know the Scripture except through hearsay, they are merely guessing.

Therefore, woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is from God" in order to purchase a cheap gain. Therefore woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have gained."

-(Al Qur'an 2:78-79)

1- The word 'ummiyoon (plural of ummi)' is immediately followed by the words 'who do not know the Scripture', which confirms the definition of the word 'ummi'.

It is exactly as the words say. The one who never received the scripture.

2- In verse 79 God warns the 'ummiyoon' not to write distorted versions of the Scripture 'with their own hands'. How can these 'ummiyoon' write distorted versions if they cannot read or write? Once again, this gives us confirmation that 'ummiyoon' does not mean an illiterate. It means gentiles who have not received any scripture.

The correct meaning of the word 'ummi' in the Quran is a gentile; one who has not received a scripture, not one who can neither read nor read.

This post was originally made by Masud Shafiullah on Quora in a thread titled "Was prophet Muhammad literate." I have done some edits and omissions. He also argued on prophet Muhammad being Khadijat's business manager which required some level of literacy and other arguments, but those are not convincing to me. The semantics and word usage is. You may check out his original post on Quora.

It cannot be then that prophet Muhammad cannot read or write. He did both. He read everything readable... Oops, I didn't say that... I actually didn't say that.... I already said above that I would leave the implications for you. Kikikiki!

Alright. Any objections, dear Muslims

AntiChristian:
You also didn't quote anything also.

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water-game and its use for food – for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel…” [al-Maidah 5:96]. So with this all animals that live only in the sea are permissible to eat.

Hmm. Interesting! Thank you for the verse.

The Torah itself and what was revealed to the world of mankind before the Torah was given identify what is clean and what is not clean even in the aquatic world.

NOT ALL WATER-GAME is permissible to be eaten. NOT ALL! What can be eaten has been identified.

My question to you is this, two questions actually: Does this seafood posted by the OP have scales? Is it to be eaten?

And If God did not permit the world of mankind to eat certain water-game before he called and sent Moses, before the Torah was dictated and given to Moses; If God did not permit the world of mankind to eat certain water-game in the time of Moses, when the Torah was given, spanning hundreds if not thousands of years, why would he suddenly make it permissible for those who came afterwards - Muslims? If it is not permissible for Abraham and for Noah who lived before Moses, and for Moses, how and why is it permissible for Muslims? Did God suddenly make a leave for what he forbade for hundreds, if not thousands of generations, prior?

This further proves my suspicion that Muhammad is NOT of God. He is undoubtedly a false prophet who came to contradict, not to confirm previous revelations. Looks like Islam is a radical departure from what has been revealed until now.

Before the Law was given

Gen 7
When everything was ready, the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the boat with all your family, for among all the people of the earth, I can see that you alone are righteous. 2 Take with you seven pairs—male and female—of each clean animal and take one pair of each of the others


After the law was given
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:

9 “Of all the marine animals, these are ones you may use for food. You may eat anything from the water if it has both fins and scales, whether taken from salt water or from streams. 10 But you must never eat animals from the sea or from rivers that do not have both fins and scales. They are detestable to you. This applies both to little creatures that live in shallow water and to all creatures that live in deep water. 11 They will always be detestable to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. 12 Any marine animal that does not have both fins and scales is detestable to you.

46 “These are the instructions regarding land animals, birds, marine creatures, and animals that scurry along the ground. 47 By these instructions you will know what is unclean and clean, and which animals may be eaten and which may not be eaten.”

AntiChristian:
Says the text of Islam!

Show verses, please.

And is that how the Quran confirms the revelation that was sent before it? By contradicting it? Do you even realize that what is deemed clean and unclean for consumption is of primary importance to the great creator that he made it abundantly clear in no uncertain terms to the world of mankind, way before, long before, even Moses was born?

Smiling derisively!

AntiChristian:


See better raw Protein!

Make i add am to Amala with Abula!

Every animal inside water is halal to eat! Except if the animal is poisonous!

Says who?

tobore4u:
You can't out smart Alabi with martingale.
It's not worth doing......but even if u decide to try it make sure u don't have high blood pressure coz u might be hospitalized

Kikikiki! Hahaha! I agree.

Only the stone-hearted, iron-willed, reality-numb punters with extremely deep pocket venture into it.

Not for people like myself or my very good friend Abba who, after losing 40 times in a row, would put hands into mouth, sucking fingers, and wondering who they offended.

JobAndVacancies:
what is it about?
Tell us

I have not tried it yet. That's why I am asking here.

I think, @PJTech, talked about the popular even-valued Martingale in one of his threads two or three years ago. PJTech, where are you?

Who has tried it or any of its many variants?

Who has tried using the Martingale betting strategy? How did it go?

FxMasterz:
My brother, the Torah is indeed an Israelite thing. This isn't complicated at all. My major stand actually is not to explain the role of the Torah in God's scheme of things but rather to let you know that God didn't propagate the Torah by war.

The Islamist have such a myopic narrative because they can't see the big picture of what God was doing when He instituted the Torah of old. As I said in IT terms, the Torah was a Beta, a shadow. The real Image is Jesus, not Mohammed.

Yeah, God can discard what He started if that thing has fulfilled its purpose. The Torah has fulfilled its purpose. We do not need to obey God's law anymore. As Christians, we live out God's law, not observing to obey it. The Holt Spirit lives out the law in us through our Lord Jesus Christ. Why, because we have it written in our hearts.

Right from the start of the diving restoration program, God wanted to continue relating with man as a spirit bring, not as a physical being. That was his He related with Adam before Adam fell. The law cannot produce that spiritual relationship between God and man, it was a carnal law. The lamb slain from the foundation of the world was the long term project of God Kickstarter by the animal lambs slain in Israel. Jesus came on the scene in John 4 and said "...the hour is coming that neither on this mountain or in Jerusalem will anyone need to give carnal worship to the Father. He that must worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. For the Father seeks such to worship Him. This was the grand picture of all that Moses started. All roads lead to the lamb that was slain. Slain from the foundation of the world. God didn't forget the slain lamb when He was instituting the Torah. The Torah was part of the process. It was not an end in itself.

It follows the line of the process I outlined in my previous post. It's not a matter of revealed will or hidden will. It's a matter of the progressive unveiling of the Divine plan.

Hey, how are wars serving the Grand will today? If ancient wars serve the purpose of the divine will, why did it stop? Did God finally realize that it doesn't work or what? There are many problems with your position. God does not need man's might or swords to make His will happen!

Can you then tell us how many nations adopted the Torah by such wars? Did the wars fail and God now realized it was not a potent method for propagating His will? You err my brother!

If I tell you the truth, you will kill me. And if I give you advice, you wouldn't listen to me anyway. Jer. 38:15.

FxMasterz:
God did everything He did just to have a specimen in His lab. He had a well defined territory in mind when He was doing that, and He never allowed Israel to go beyond that predefined territory. He never wanted to propagate the Torah through wars. The covenant that the Torah represents wasn't perfect. God had something perfect in mind for the whole world. Israel remained under the schoolmaster of the Torah until the perfect came, and then God brought in all other nations to participate. There's no single verse of scripture where God ever instructed Israel to take over the whole world, but Christ gave us a command to preach the Gospel to all nations.

I
How would that have happened even when Babylonia itself was never Judahic?


It cannot be the case because that wasn't God's plan. Jesus Christ is called "The lamb slain from the foundation of the world" for a reason.


Those commands were just rules of war. There was no command for them to proselyte any nation.


Yeah, those were the territories already predefined. The Israelites knew their boundaries. God already told Abraham the dimensions of the territory He was giving his descendants.


Completely negates your position. Why would God give instructions only for nations nearby which are within the predefined territory God already showed to Abraham, and not include far away nations if He had any mind of the Torah travelling all over the world?



The outpouring of the Spirit isn't a last resort. It was part of the program originally.

1. There's a lamb slain from the foundation of the world - Revelation 13:8

2. There was a promise of one Seed, not seeds to Abraham, through whom the whole world will be blessed.

3.. David was constantly reminded that a descendant of his will be a forever King.

4. God continued to tell the Israelites that the Gentiles would come to 'His Light' while He makes them jealous.

The outpouring of the Spirit was not a last resort at all.

This is what really happened:

1. God already knew that man would fail, so He prepared a remedy before man failed. Right from the foundation of the world, Christ was already in the picture.

2. To actualise the reconciliation of all things, God had to take the world through a process:

a. Take a role model nation to Himself.

b. Through the nation, He would reveal Himself and give man the opportunity to.know about God's personality.

C. Teach man about the consequences of sin and that man cannot save himself.

d. Make man see that blood is necessary for the propitiation of sin.

e. Make man see that the blood of animals is not sufficient to propitiate sins.

f. Prepare the hearts of men to see the need for a Saviour.

3. Introduce the Saviour into the world at a time the world has learnt one language for international communication. This provides for easy communication to propagate the Good News of God's merciful intervention in a sinful world.

4. Start the global reconciliation movement with the news of an eternal sacrifice for sin.

5. Gather all who subscribe to cleansing, all through the ages.

6. Create a new earth for them.

7. Eliminate sin and Satan forever.

8. Enjoy everlasting fellowship with man forever as it was in the beginning.

The Torah was introduced because of sins. To teach man how sinful sin really is. It was just a schoolmaster to teach Israel until the Lord came. Now, the Lord has come, and He is now the Covenant of the nations. In Him (not in the Torah) shall the Gentiles trust.

FxMasterz, we are now in a sacred intersection. The first road leading east takes you to a small village called Divine Predestination and/or Divine fore-ordination; the other road leading westwards leads to a tiny village called Human responsibility. It would seem like if you go eastwards then the road leading to the west eludes you. The same can be said of the other road. Now, this is a subject that has puzzled the saints and philisophers and I would not attempt to reconcile them because like they, you and I simply do not know much about the subject.
It seems to me like a great paradox to reconcile them both, but I would like to think that they are both true. God has predestined at least some things - like the lamb slain from the foundation of the world - and yet, and yet, man is totally responsible especially for what has been made clear unto him.

One thunders God's secret will while the other talks of his revealed will. You have to understand that the Torah is not a ceremonial symbol of do's and don't s; it is a symbol of our accountability and responsibility to God for all time - which God has, time and time again, made clear that obedience to these laws is a part of our obligation to him. As Christians, we still obey the Torah, though in a very limited sense. Can we then say that because God has made provisions for our sins back in eternity, we are not supposed to follow the path he has made plain for all time? Are we supposed to peep and peer into God's hidden counsel?

God's revealed will should be the guiding principle of the believer, not his secret will. God revealed a path as the path we should follow, it would be unwise then to assume that God IS NOT SUPPOSED TO continue with the path he has chosen and instituted because of our nasty
proclivity to stray, or that because Christ has already been made a propitiation for our sins from the foundation of the world - that he is then supposed to discard what he started with, if in time, he thinks otherwise.

That is what your rebuttals amount to. Is God supposed to do anything at all? If you answer no, then you just agreed with me that the Torah is supposed to be a guide for all mankind for all ages. Is God supposed (special emphasis on "suppose" to do away with the Torah
because men are unable to obey all its requirements for all time? Is God supposed to do away with the Torah because Christ has been slain from the foundation of the world? Is he supposed to create man, help man, deliver man or do anything at all for his creatures? No, of course not. God is under no obligations to his creatures. He owes no one. God is not supposed to do anything he has not already done. He is absolutely free. Look at the title of my post again, please.

My post is looking at the subject with a magnifying glass called God's revealed will in time, not God's secret will with the benefit of hindsight. Just as he did not have to forgive Adam, God did not have to slay or even send the slain lamb (who was slain from the foundation of the world) - to propitiate for man's sins. If you say the Torah is not supposed to be the guide for all of mankind for all ages because of
man's dire inability to keep it, then I would respectfully disagree because the fault is man's, not the Torah. The blame is on you, not on the Torah or on God who gave it. The law, as the apostle puts it, is just and good and fair.

It is supposed to be a guide, but turns out, it is not - because of God's great mercy. Is God supposed to show mercy?

The only grounds one can have to claim that the Torah is not supposed to be a guide is if there is a problem with the Torah itself. There is none, however.

If the Jews had obeyed God's law to a certain satisfactory or manageable degree, maybe, just maybe, God might give free rein for the system he's put in place to continue. In that sense, it was supposed to continue as a guide not just for the Jews, but for all of mankind. We simply don't know how much the axle of God's will would turn and should not exactly assume because it turned out differently in time - that God must necessarily do away with the Torah because of men's inabilities.

The Muslims whom the post is addressed to do not believe these. I addressed them, not the Christians who believe in man's fallen nature.

And again, I am talking as a human who has been made responsible by the Law and with a very deep belief in the sovereignty of God. Our God, as the Psalmist said, is in the Heavens and he does as he pleases. If God made a two part movie. Is he supposed to release one or both parts?

We can only say as puny creatures with some level of confidence that what is first in line is supposed to continue, not what came after it. The post is meant to take a jab at Muhammad who claimed that he is the end of the Torah, not to glorify the Torah above Christ's glorious sacrifice.

That being said, Israel were not forbidden from trespassing a predefined territory; they were supposed to conquer anything conquerable and dominate the world. The Bible makes it clear - I think in the book of Deuteronomy - that if the Israelite obey his commands and do what is pleasing before him, that, NLT, wherever they step their foot on becomes a land for them. Do you know the implication of this promise?

The territory becomes theirs!

The land given to Abraham was as far as his eyes could see. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. God was making it clear to Abraham that his kingdom would be established (on earth) through his progeny. And as you know, the kingdom of God is a kingdom without borders! Sometimes the Jewish people trespassed and occupied territories beyond Dan in the north.

If they were forbidden from crossing a predefined limits, then the Torah should never have permitted wars in the first place. It should only have been for self-defense. David, Solomon, Saul and all the other kings who fought offensive wars, not defensive wars, should never have gotten a response from Yahweh when they inquired of him before they went ahead, and they should never have succeeded with their tiny army did fight. God Almighty who is mighty, lol, gave men who obeyed him and whom he loved victory, great victory when they fought offensive wars in the past.

In fact, God often used wars and the victory (he gives to the victors) to stir up people, events, and things as was the case of Saul and David who got similar praises from Jewish women - Saul has killed his thousands and David his ten thousands. It would be silly, very silly, very, very silly to say that ancient wars do not further or serve to further the great and noble purposes of the divine will. They absolutely do!

Reason dictates that when limits for a thing, an event, or whatever is intended by those higher up, then prohibitive commands should be made. If God wanted to contain the Israelite, he would have said it.

God confirmed his promises (made hundreds of years earlier) to give a bunch of people landed property through warfare and you think he never wanted distant nations to feel their way to him through those he has chosen to give victory. WOW! You should observe that before
things deteriorated badly in the book of Kings, that godly kings were, on average, successful when they encroached into other nation's lands and soundly defeated them.

My post is supposed to be an attack on the Islamic faith especially Muhammad who falsely claimed that the Torah is an Israelite thing, and not worldwide.

Ciao! Bye!

Curious345:
APC Na injury . For those supporting APC, "do you have a tumour in your brains ?"

No, unfortunately, I don't have a tumour in my brain.

It's right here in my ass. Nyash tumour!

nairalee:
I have a solution to Nigerian problem

Federal government send money to local governments directly (LG autonomy)

The exact amount sent to each local government is publicised

Each local government will have a website where they have a list of their most pressing needs with the cost of each project (e.g setting up of hospital along xyz village 35m, constructing abc road 1.5bn etc)


Indigenes visit the site and vote for the projects to be executed for that period.

Highest voted projects get immediate attention. Once completed, it's removed from the list and others added.

That way, the Indigenes are seeing exactly how much is entering and exactly what is spent for what project. This will result in transparency.

Just my idea though

If you were a presidential aspirant, I would search everywhere for your logo on the ballot.

I would have voted for you twice. No, three - actually maybe four or five or even six times.

Lukuluku69:
Dross!!!

Your Jehovah clearly says Ishmael is Abraham son in many places in your Bible, so, all these dross about Bola, Tolu and Delete should be reserved for your Church Members and not people of reasoning.

You agreed that your Jehovah spoke to others yet you insisted that Jehovah spoke only to Israel.

I gave you instances with names from your Bible yet you keep typing those empty meaningless dross and you want me to keep engaging you?

Lol

You said "your bible" as if it is not our bible. It's your bible, too. If it weren't for the bible, we wouldn't have known that Ishmael was given birth to when Abraham was 86 years old. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't have known that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar because of Ishmael's sufferings and made provisions for her. And made promises to her. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't have known that Ishmael, like Isaac, was promised nationhood too. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't have known that Ishmael was one of the attendees of his father, Abraham's funeral, and actually covered him. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't have known that Ishmael had twelve sons who became the founders of twelve tribes named after them. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't have known how long Ishmael lived or where he lived. If it weren't for the bible we wouldn't even have known where these tribes lived. I could go on and on and on.

It is the bible, not the Quran, that dignified Ishmael -for if it didn't bring up all these information, Ishmael's descendants would never have had a voice or claim any rivalry because the record is with us, not with you. They do not even have a record of their genealogy or where they lived. They are not any different from the different tribes dispersed across Africa. What an irony! A sad, sad one at that.

I am so happy, though, that you didn't offer any rebuttals. It only shows that my logic is in line with good judgment. Haha. E go too pain me, though, if you rebuffed me logically, but let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense that the events in question was corrupted or the records was tainted to favour Isaac. For all I can see now, that is the only branch I see you sitting on. And why you would think this way is what I don't understand. The author could have simply said God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac without adding any modifiers. Muhammad fell for a blind trap that disproved in no uncertain terms his prophet-hood. Bastar*! B*stard!

Instead of logically agreeing with what has been revealed many years before you were born before furthering your own narratives as wise people would often do, you contradict what has been revealed and then claim to be a confirmation of what has been sent before you. What an extremely illogical human. Probably demon-possessed. Even Jewish prophets who frequently spoke against drunkenness never out-rightly condemned alcohol because that would make their revelation contradictory to what has already been revealed before now.

Now, there is something I want you to think about carefully and it is this: God never leads people astray before he leads them aright. He first leads people aright, show them the path they should follow first off before he leads them astray. Yes, God does both, but the order is extremely important because he is absolutely holy. Blaming the writer, the scribes, or the people for the corruption does not exonerate God or make him innocent, for if he knew how gullible mankind can be and how difficult it would be for them to unlearn and relearn and if he knew how extremely difficult men find it to leave a destructive path once they have learnt or followed such a path especially in their thousands, then why allow this in the first place? And why blame those who do not leave knowing full well their inclinations? I am not even siding with Christianity here. What I am saying is that Judaism is the purest religion we have ever had. Any religion that aligns with or tows its path is the closest to true religion.

The whole significance of the event is not an Ishmael or Isaac thing, but a test. Just want you to absolutely know that the burnt offering is Isaac, Muhammad is literate and knows what he is doing.

That said, I don't hate you or despise muslims, so you should not have to avoid me like you said. It is your prophet, not muslims, that I despise because he is a liar and the father of lies.

That being said, If Ile-ya meat, whether the big or the small Sallah, if meat dey available, just holla me abeg, I dey gallant. I wan chop meat. Don't forget your servant.

Lukuluku69:
Lol

Christmas is idolatrous to him but His God giving and inspiring a vision on January 1 the birth the Roman god Janus which bears the god name and commencement of a new Roman year is not idolatrous.

His sheeple will lap this up now.

Blind, deaf and dumb people.

You suddenly went ghost. I was expecting a robust response from you, but I have yet to read it.

If a Muslim or an atheist on this forum or anywhere else drafted a well-though-out, coherent, beautiful, valid arguments that challenges the core of my Faith as a Christian and I went into brief arguments and it turns out that I am dazed to a corner, then believe it or not, I would either take a break and do my own research or question the beliefs I hold dear. It's not cool to argue for the sake of argument. Wise people don't. I would not walk off and continue arguing as if he said nothing. True religion is not verified by practice (because a zeal for God can be misplaced and misdirected) or even by experience (because there are many spirits and powers). It is verified logically. As crazy as this might sound, even to Christians, true religion is verified logically. In fact, in my post on the validity of the Torah which I am begging you to comment on, I just verified the truthfulness and accuracy of the Christian faith with utmost and absolute certainty and only the wise ones could see it. Ha! Ha!

I hope I have been able to convince, and not confuse you, like secondary school debaters would often say, that titles cannot misidentify names especially when used side by side in the same sentence. If a woman says - my husband, my one and only husband Ade (when talking to her son), it could mean that she so much cherishes his presence that he is now like a husband to her, or it could even mean that he is actually now playing the roles of a husband, so she is addressing him by that title or it could just be a teaser. It could also mean many things. The application is quite easy to the point I am trying to make. I didn't even research and have never researched a single opinion of mine before dropping the comments, not this one and not the Torah being the absolute.

I would appreciate your effort if you could comment on my post on - the Torah is supposed to be a guide for all mankind. Not a single Muslim has made any rebuttals so far.

Cheers..

AntiChristian:
You didn't even quote one verse to buttress anything!

Hello AntiChristian,

Do I need to quote any verse of the bible to buttress my claims? Did I tell a lie in my write-up?

Did I make up anything in what I just wrote?

FxMasterz:
My brother, it doesn't make sense that God would propagate the Torah through war and then settled for a very miniature portion of the world. Your assertion would make sense if the Israelites were warring from place to place the way the Islamic god propagated Islam.

Infact, God commanded the complete annihilation of those wicked nations. He didn't ask Israel to convert anybody. They were to learn the art of war for defence only, not for the propagation of the Torah. God's intention was Jesus. The Torah was a shadow of some real things that were to come. God didn't tell Israel to go propagate the shadow. When. Jesus came with the real thing, He said "Go ye into the world..."

God clearly just gave Israel a portion in the middle East, and clearly instructed them not to go beyond that portion. Even within that vicinity, there were many pagan nations God expressly warned Israel not to tamper with.

He obviously was in lab, cleared a table for this specimen, and once He was done with His Beta, He released His version 2.0 to the world through the Lord Jesus.

If God had to come down in his persona and in his form, which, by the way, never happened again, to instruct and to give his laws, then you should know that this is not child's play. If God had to tarry with Moses on the mountain for 40 days and for another 40 days instructing him, you should be aware at this point that God means business. In fact, if God had to yank a nation from another nation, one of the most powerful of its time through warfare, and then take this nation into another territory by warfare, and then expand the said nation by fighting wars, it should be clear at this point that these killings are not done for sports. He really wants mankind to know him through the channel he has instituted - which is physical power. There is no overthinking this with God.

Physical power has its limit but there is so much it can accomplish too. You can ask Esther who chronicled an event in which she and other Jewish exiles were in real danger of extermination. You can ask her how vast the empire in question spans - how big of a territory provinces stretching from India to Ethiopia is, Est. 1: 1. Or, you could ask Daniel what his eyes saw in Babylon when all nations and people under the different Babylonian monarchs worshiped and bow down to the Babylonian gods on the threat of death. Or, you could ask the northern Kingdom (Israel, who got displaced by Assyria) what it feels like to have foreigners of mixed nationalities settle in your own territory. There is just so much physical power can accomplish in the propagation of the Torah.

Imagine what God said of Nebuchadnezzar through the prophet Jeremiah and Daniel were true of the Jewish state that he has put everything, even the wild animals, under Nebuchadnessar's control. Jeremiah 27:6-7, Daniel 4 (NLT). Lol! If that was the case and Christ never came, then you and I would have been Judaic professors by fire or by force. Lol.

Certainly, the Torah would have snowballed into something else, something mighty, something powerful, something unhinged, but that is not the case.

Now, you are confusing two distinct commands. The Jews were given two commands as it pertains to war in Deuteronomy 20. One was supposed to be time-bound because it applied to the territory they would displace and occupy, i.e Canaan. The other command applies to distant nation far off from Canaan they would have to wage war against over time. These are separate commands.

In fact, the chapter starts off by saying: When you go out to fight your enemies and you face....

and then it instructs the people and priest on what is reuired of them in the process. One verse I'd like to draw your attention to is chpater 15 and onwards. it reads

15 But these instructions apply only to
distant towns, not to the towns of
nations nearby.

16"As for the towns of the nations the
LORD your God is giving you as a
special possession, destroy every living
thing in them.

17You must completely destroy the
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just
as the LORD your God has commanded
you.

This is clear enough.

The outpouring of the Spirit, I would like to think, is a medium of last resort. Although I would have you ponder the fact that God had this all figured out back in eternity, but then, yes, we cannot compartmentalize God, so I partially agree with your take. It's just like arguing on what would happen and the sequence of events that would follow if Adam had not sinned.

Lukuluku69:
You guys says Ishmael is not a Legitimate son I can only laugh at such laughable insinuation because Jacob wives Rachel and Leah also gave their handmaiden to Jacob and they had kids for Jacob. They are the so-called Tribes of Israel. So, why make meat of one and fish of the other way they are both same?

I told you I am still on para mode and would be coming for you. I woke up this morning to type this. You are yet to respond to what I asked you.

Okay, like I asked earlier, if a widow has a son, Ade, and a late husband, Bolato. Let me reiterate: her son's name is Ade and husband's name is Bolato.

If she then says - my dear husband, my one and only husband Ade.

Remember, Ade is her son, not her husband.

Would she be in error, or be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken?

This scenario is even a bit off since we said the husband is late. Let me use another one.

If a woman has a husband Ade, not late but still alive, and a son, Bolato. Let me reiterate her son's name again. He is called Bolato and her husband's name is Ade. Here, I have interchanged the names and titles.

Now, if she says - my dear husband, my one and only husband Bolato.....

Or if she says - my dear son, my one and only son Ade.....

If she calls each of these by what I just typed, would be in error, or just be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken? Would the parties involved have confused/conflated who is been referred to?

Okay, this is still not as close.

If a woman has three sons, in the order they were born and these sons are 25 years apart: Tolu(first), Mosa(second), and Dele(third).

Now, if she - my son, my only son Dele
Or, if she says - my son, my first son Dele
Or, if she says - my son, my one and only son Dele

If she spoke this way in the presence of all her kids, would all three present have misunderstood who is been referred to? Would she be in error, or just be guilty of forgetfulness, or have spoken inappropriately/wrongly, or have been mistaken? Would all the parties involved have confused/conflated who is been referred to as Tolu even though Tolu is actually her first son?

The answer to all of these questions and scenarios I have put forth is a clear and a resounding no. Of course not. The person being referred to is clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The people present would neither accuser the speaker of forgetfulness nor think she is mistaken. There would be no confusion on the matter.

The thing is this, titles cannot trump explicit identifiers especially known names when used side by side in the same sentence. Names are also identifiers like titles are, but they trump and smack whatever title is being used used by side with it. Whenever a title is being used before a name or even after a name, the name takes precedence and carries more weight. When a contradictory title is being used side by side with a name, the title does not misidentify the name. Names misidentify titles, and not the other way around.

This is common sense.

Clearly, the mischief in Muhammad's mind is so big, so glaring, so loud that even a honest toddler can see it. If he cannot get this basic stuff correctly, he cannot be trusted to have good judgment. It follows from this that his judgment is extremely poor. QED.

Hello guys, merry Christmas and and a prosperous New Year!

Today's tickets has infimum and supremum written all over it.

We go again.

Kobojunkie:
No!🤔

The people known as the Jews only came to be after the former nation of Israel was divided in to two separate nations -- the Northern nation of Israel and the Southern nation of Judae whose people were subsequently regarded as Jews after they were then taken into captivity by the Babylonians. The nation of Judae was created from the descendants of merely the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi..these are those regarded as the Jews.

I will answer you tomorrow.

FxMasterz:
Well, I do not think that God wanted to propagate the Torah. He already had a plan for a New Covenant, hence propagating a covenant that would soon be abolished was just unnecessary.

God's strategy was to create a model nation through whom He would reach the whole world. The model nation need a place in an already populated world. To create a place for them, God had to remove the wicked through a just punishment. This was what informed the wars of Canaan.

God would propagate the Torah and himself by implications and he actually had a well-defined blueprint.

He would first carve out a bunch of people for himself from another nation, a very powerful one of its time. Then he would take this carved out nation into the midst of another well populated region; then he would displace the people who live in this region and in surrounding areas, expand and conquer east and westwards. Of course, so much warfare would occur. All of these would involve brute force and physical and spiritual power, but the warriors' victory is assured and guaranteed because God would be the one to give them victory, not by their swords.

Here is the problem, however, victory is never guaranteed without obedience. The Israelite were very rebellious and could not tap into God's blessing, his solid promises of one warrior chasing a thousand, and his protections. I think it's in the book of Judges or Joshua in chapter 2 or 3 or 4 (don't remember, NLT) where it says God did not quickly drive out the Canaanite from the land because he did so to teach future generations of Israelite who had no experience in battle about the act of warfare.

Now, why is warfare so important? The prophet Daniel, being in a foreign land, would be in a better position to answer this question. He knows fully well and understands indubitably that the most successful war-mongers have their religion and their God as the de-facto one. Everyone in the region and beyond would have worshiped Yahweh through a show of physical power and force had the Jewish people obeyed the laws and lived blamelessly before him. In the end, the Torah would have been a guiding principles for both the Jews and the gentiles. It wasn't because the Jews did not gbe ori duro!

God had to resort to spiritual power, not physical power as is the case with warfare, to get people to know him - and viola, we have a religion with more than 1.5 billion followers, Christianity.

SO yes, God had wanted to propagate the Torah and make it the guiding principle for mankind for all ages but the rebellious Jews didn't make that happen. In fact, they struggled to live up to the righteousness of the surrounding nations God had driven out before them.

I would answer your second objection later.

Kobojunkie:
This here is what is an opinion piece based on fiction and not facts.

Let me get your right: there was never a war against the Canaanites (in their own land) by a bunch of outsiders called the Jews who invaded their lands and killed them in their thousands? Is that what you are calling fiction? It never happened?