₦airaland Forum

Lukuluku69:
On Ishmael and Isaac, God told Abraham to take THINE ONLY SON for sacrifice (which was a Test) I ask you, at what point in Abraham life he had an ONLY SON? Was it not when he had only Ishmael? When Isaac came he has TWO and not an Only Son.

I do not expect you to see that because the training is to ignore what is obvious and stick with the lies told over and over again.


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?

To be brutally frank with you sir, I am quite upset I had to answer this objection first! This is mischief taken too far. I am so-so upset with you for raising this silly objection. Are you so bereft of any iota of wisdom? Are you pulling my legs and whining me for nothing or something?

Would the writer of the Genesis account be so impish, so foolish, so silly, to make a promising blunder of this magnitude if that were not what God said of Isaac? Does God have to be politically correct down to a title when he interacts and talks with his beloved about what concerns them? Has it not been made clear through the circumstances surrounding the whole saga from the get-go that Isaac is the promised son and should be seen as a reference, not Ishmael, in God's dealing with him? Besides, is Isaac and Ishmael the only sons of Abraham? Is the timeline of events not crisp enough (for me and you) to read and understand? Do we have to nitpick every statement God makes to support whatever narratives we might have despite how clear the scripture passage might be? Is God suffering forgetfulness that he could not help but interchange names with titles in the same line? If God says Isaac is Abraham's only son, are you going to factually check mark him?

If the passage had said - your only son - without giving further details about who this only son is, would that still support your position? NO, of course, it would not! I would show you why. Would God expressly say - your only son and goes ahead to identifies the only son as Isaac in the same line - and turns out the passage actually wanted to say - your only son Ishmael - or that God had a slip of tongue, or that the author misplaced titles and names despite how clear his narratives has been up till this point? Doesn't the story-line makes it very clear that at the very point in time God issued that command Abraham had only one son in his care? I am so upset.

Let's look at the passage in contention again.

Genesis 22, my translation the NLT starts off with the words: Some time later, God tested Abraham's faith....

In the KJV version, it reads: And it came to pass after these things that God did test Abraham....

Both of these passage are quite clear and same the same thing, namely, that what follows subsequently, what you are about to read from that point onward happened after the chapters before it, not before it. You are quite literate.

The KJV says - after these things - what things?

And the NLT says - some times later - later, when?

Now, this should be more obvious, more common than even common sense.

Again, the timeline of events is very clear. In fact, that is true of all of Genesis. For instance, the events in chapter 2 follows from what happened in chapter 1 of the same book. The events in chapter 7 follows from what happened in chapter 6 and downwards. The stories are sequential in order. It would be arguing in bad faith, for example, to argue that the destruction of Sodom happened before the world was created, or that Joseph was thrown into prison before Abraham's son Ishmael was born.

Why am I hitting on this? The reason is because you are arguing in bad faith! It's so crazy that you're trying hard to use words and meanings to further a narrative not told and not implied in the text. The first verse of that chapter said sometimes later God tested Abraham's faith. The passage said after what has happened so far God tested Abraham's faith. After what exactly had happened? After all the events in the chapters before it, but specifically the chapter just above it - namely chapter 21.

But what happened in Chapter 21? Ishmael and Hagar are driven away. Who is the only son left at the time Abraham was asked to carry out this test? Remember, the passage in the very first chapter makes it clear that what happens in it happened after the events before it. Now, my question to you is this: If Ishmael and Hagar had long been driven away and no longer live with Abraham, would it be a blunder and out of place to refer to Isaac as Abraham's only son, speaking casually? If a woman is a widow and is fond of calling her first son her husband for whatever reasons, would that be a blunder? Another question, if Ishmael was born naturally by coitus and Isaac was born at the age of 90 and 99 years by God's divine intervention, would it be out of place of God to refer to something he gave not naturally but supernaturally as an only son putting in mind that he had said he is going to be the focal point of the covenant?

Another question, if the author of the book makes a statement and simply says - your only son - in that passage allegedly from God without giving further identifying details of who this son is, who would it be? If the author commits a blunder and identifies the only son as Isaac, a blunder done in error, how is it that the same name is scattered in different verses of that chapter? In English if we say - so therefore - what do we mean?

I am still coming for you. I am still on para mode.

Now, you also said,

Lukuluku69:
This is from the Bible yet the same Book in Amos says God only speak to Israel. So, who is the Liar here?

In Amos' prophecy , the bible does not say, in the verse I quoted earlier, that God spoke only to Israel. On the contrary, it says God has been more intimate with Israel more than any other nation. It is quite clear. A man might be more intimate with his wife (more than any other woman), but that doesn't mean he does not have other women on the side. Amos is not a liar, the fact is obvious for people with an unbiased mind to read. God has been more intimate with the Jewish race than any other human race on planet earth. If you don't agree, can you prove it to me that there lived a race, a tribe, or a nation whose people saw God in their thousands, if not millions, received his Laws, covenanted themselves with him, agreed to obey his laws, received hundreds, if not thousands of prophets from him, saved these revelations for current and future generations and make bold different claims and prophecies. You can show us how these prophets or the people chronicled their relationship with God and how it panned out through several millennium, you can show us how these people or prophets chronicled how their relationship with God panned out outside their own territory through several years when they were exiled. Let's read and talk about the plans their God have for them, both present and future. Can you show me another nation with a record of this magnitude?

And like I asked one guy, does he(Muhammad) think he can briskly walk in and rewrite history with a few strokes of his pen? Then he must be crazy!

Lukuluku69:
You agreed that God spoke to Balam, you also agreed that God spoke to Job and some few men who are not Israelites after the flood.

Jonah was raised to speak to the inhabitants of Nineveh (The Bible says some 120,000 inhabitants) and we read that they repented and God spared their City from destruction yet they weren't Jews or Israelites.

Like I said, God speaks to whomever he pleases, but he does things that are consistent and are in consonance with his nature. God spoke to Balam through his donkey, so speaking to sinners and saints alike does not prove much. Besides, the exception does not disprove the rule. God has a way he does his things. Yes, he spoke to Job, but there is not so much known about Job. Job is one of the oldest, if not the oldest book of the bible; written around the time of Genesis, so we cannot trace Job's lineage as the passage does not talk much on that. We can't say he is not Jewish; we simply don't know. I am not going to discuss the other subject now, Jonah, until I can find a definite conclusion on it.

As per this post

And this one too

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

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!

Coldrux:
35k..
I feed from it.
Pay House-Rent
Transport and support my siblings since we are orphans.

I can never advise any young guy to teach in a private sch, and if u must teach there, don't stay long on the job. It's tantamount to time waste. You can't make anything meaningful from there. I'm a perfect example.
I wanted to quit this January, but it's unwise doing so without having anything doing. Moreso, my rent expires next month. I can't sleep. I'm disturbed cos of this. Nobody to help

Lol, I once taught in a private school, too, and had to send a para resignation letter when I got that month's salary having realized that I would regret tarrying there any longer.

In my mind I was, if my performance as a classroom teach, specifically the kid's external result in my subject that came out quite good could not cover up for my absence and whatever deductions that might ensue, nothing else will. I kukuma did a para resignation comot for there. I hate what I don't like.

It is, as you said, a waste of precious time. That being said, why is your salary so low? That is so fucking low for a high-brow area like Abuja, or are you a nanny? Do you live in the city center? What is your qualification?

I once rejected the same amount in a very low-brow area of another city. What do you teach?

FxMasterz:
Thanks brother for the commendation.

Thanks for thanking me. Lol. . So I was typing and poof - NEPA pafuka the light!

FxMasterz:
I have only one response to all you have said so far. Yeah, I can see the depth of what you're hitting at and fully understand your valid points even though you are yet to complete your post as you indicated in your last sentence.

This is the only response I have: God does not want anyone to do anything because of Him. He just wants you to do the right things. That's all. Always doing the right things is what brought up the word "RIGHTEOUS". That's all God wants.

This would inevitably lead to questions: where did we get our morality from; is it from ourselves or from something outside us? And we'd be asking another question, is morality really subjective or objective?

Morality, my dear, is not objective. It is subjective. God decides what is right. There is nothing like absolute morality. Some seemingly "good" things or events are bad because God says they are and vice versa.

Now, let's talk about our first parents, Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve and their Fall, if anything, should inform me and you that morality is subjective, not objective. God impressed upon Adam and on his offspring that He is the ultimate standards of right and wrong. God impressed on him by an innocuous command that morality is neither here nor there unless what he says and by his permission.

If God requires that whole communities including babies, infants, and animals be burnt to ashes (as he commanded to the Israelite who would eventually enter the Promised Land), then the command itself and the people's action afterwards is actually a very good one. That it was a punishment for sin is a lazy coup-out. Everyone don't get punished for sin. And everyone who committed the same sin don't get punished the same way, after all. Warfare cannot even be said to be a punishment for sin. That action of theirs (The holy War, so to speak) is actually a righteous and godly action!

Or what of the fact that He hardens people's hearts, demands obedience from them, and then punishes them when they don't oblige. We can't explain the morality of these actions objectively. God is called the sovereign LORD for a reason. Sovereignty and objective morality are not c- related terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. God's will has to be free and outside the forces and balances of nature because he created nature. There is no moral justification to impute another man's unrighteousness on his descendants, and yet, we find in Holy scriptures and by experience that women experience pain during childbirth because another sinned. Men suffer from dawn to dusk tilling and striving very hard to make money because Adam sinned. There is no moral justification whatsoever for this.

I didn't sin, some would boldly say. I certainly do not deserve to be tried in another man's stead. I am going to take the matter to court, haha.

If God's action were tried in a secular court, the depraved wretch of a judge would be screaming guilty-guilty, guilty as tried!

But God is neither guilty nor under obligations to submit to natural laws. What I am saying is this, God never requires his creatures to do something because it is right, it is right because God says so. The order is important. God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong so that whatsoever he says is right is right.

God's judgment, his decisions, his actions are right and good and fair and are sometimes at variance to what we know as objective truths. It has to be then that God is not bound by objective morality, such that whatsoever he does is......... yes, you got it right - RIGHT! Whatsoever he does is right.

You brought up the subject of Adam and Eve. Now on Adam and Eve, they were given a command to NOT eat of a certain fruit. We know how it turned out. But the question I would like to ask you is this: Did they commit a morally wrong action? Is it morally wrong to eat an Apple or whatever the fruit is? What God commanded them NOT to do, is it a morally wrong action? Eating Apples? Of course, the answer is a NO! Is eating Apples morally right? YES, because it is good for your health - as it contains some essential vitamins and minerals. But that action of theirs became bad because God commanded it. You see the point I am trying to make that God does not want you to do the right thing because it is right, but because he commands it. It is always all about God, not whether an action is good, or beneficial ,or helpful.

In fact, the very fact that there are always exceptions to every rule proves that morality is not objective, but subjective. If morality were objective God should never have permitted wars and in some instances commanded. Why? Warfare is just as bad today as it was many, many years ago. If morality were, in fact, objective as you are saying, then women should be able to marry many husbands are many many wives.

Like mathematicians do after a mathematical proof -QED! I hope I have QED!

FxMasterz:
Micah 6:8
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

What God expects of every man including those Ninevites:

1. Act justly

2. Be merciful

3. Be humble before God.

Anyone doing the above 3 is doing the right things, and would be acceptable to God even if he or she does not know God. The babaláwo family in your analogy would do well to do the same if they know within themselves that indeed they're wicked.

The passage you just quoted can also read: Act justly before God. Be merciful before God. Be humble before God. These still proves what I have been saying all along.

On the Bablawo, it seems you have difficulty grasping the times and seasons of the past. A Babalawo repenting by eloquent words of the mouth? NO! A man who has encountered and enjoyed immense power from his god giving you minutes of his time? NO na!

Besides, the god he serves has given his own laws which the babalawo and the whole community abide by, so why would he/they want to obey another law from another god? He is just as zealous for his god as you are for yours.

In fact, the same can be said of the whole community. This is the thing, God's law sometimes agrees with the laws of the god whom he serves - like, for example, the law on murder. Now, if the god he serves expressly makes it forbidden (for community members) to commit murder, why would the Abrahamic God send a representative to make the same command? Is it that the god they serve is not as powerful or he is not doing a good job?

You know as well as I do that the devil wants worship at all cost and would shit his pants out if men begin a blood-letting campaign. If that happens, there would be no worshiper left to worship him. What good then is sending prophets to rebuke men of natural laws or the laws of the conscience as you put it when the babalawo and the community have received something similar from their own oracle?

FxMasterz:
God loves it that way - do the right things, not because of Him but because it's the right thing. This is the best way to live because even if God ceases to exist, you'll still continue to do the right thing.

This is one of the areas I have problems with many of us Christians. We want to do the right things because of paradise and because we don't want to go to hell. That means if there's no more paradise and God announces that there's no more hell, we'll just immediately become as evil as the devil.

It is good to do the right thing whether God is there or not. That's the kind of human beings God wants. Just as I as a father want my children do the right things whether I'm there or not, and not just because of me.

You have not understood the concept of the Abrahamic god. He is more than life; he is life itself, more than breadth, he is breadth itself. Whatever anyone would do that is not done because of him is invalid, null and void, and of no consequence whatsoever. That is why the first and most important commandment of all the commandments is to have no other god besides him. He is the fountain, the spring, the decider and the source of everything. It is simply untrue that right or wrong are independent of God. God decides what is and what is not. Extrapolating you and your kids for God and his creature is false equivalence. E no follow at all.

I agree with your number 3, it is the highest and the loftiest of all righteousness. God did not create man to live in a moral you can "the right thing to do" there is no right or wrong without God.

AntiChristian:
I don't understand your language! Antagonise as the spirit leads you.

Hol am make e no run. Hol hin trouser make e no run. Where is he, okay we have seen him, oya hol in trouser make e no run - that is what I said in the Hausa Language.

You ran so fast with your tails between your legs meanwhile our discussion was civil devoid of any hate or attacks.

The post you just read was a comment I made in its unmodified form to a Nairaland user, AntiChristian, some days ago.

Realizing how profound it is and its implications, I thought I would share it in the religion thread.

I am seeking the opinion of dissenters who disagree with the opinion stated therein, especially Muslims.

Let's talk.

The Jews entered the Promised Land through warfare and would almost certainly expand by the same act. It seems logical then to infer that God's tool of propagating the Torah and himself (by implication) is a very effective strategy at the time - warfare. Conversion happens by force, not by some flowery words. Preaching to conquered territories would come naturally. They wouldn't have to be instructed to do it. After all, the nation that propagates the ideas of its God and its religion is not the one that is commanded by its holy books to do so, but the one that succeeds quite well in the act of warfare. That should be quite obvious.

Fighting wars in ancient times is almost inevitable. There would always be reasons to fight. And the more successful you are in the battlefield, the more likely you are to proselytize people and get nations to your God. God already promised and guaranteed victory to the Jewish nations if they obeyed his laws, so it is not true at all that Moses was sent to only Israel and not to the world at large. If God was going to give them a Land through wars, he would almost certainly keep them and expand their territories through the same act. It seems it's only a matter of time before subjugated nations and people worship the one true God even though they would not willingly worship initially.

God does not have to spell out an obvious truth (in the Torah) on how he was going to use the Jews to draw mankind to himself after giving the Law. If the Jews expanded and conquered territories, wouldn't people be forced to accept their religion?

The point I am making is that Muhammad's claim that he Torah was sent through Moses for the benefit of the Jews is gross error. The Torah is supposed to benefit all of mankind for all ages.

FxMasterz:
I'm actually enjoying your inputs. They're very logical and sound. I will keep following your arguments till the very end. Please accept my commendation.

Permit me to clarify the Jonah/Assyria problem. I don't need to speak in many words because I consider you a very smart personality.

having read your piece, I have to admit that you are living up to your username: a master in theology, good judgment, and excellent manners/morals. I salute you sir. Accept my heartfelt handshake.

FxMasterz:
Now, let's talk about Jonah and the Assyrians. The situation is simple. Even though God did not have any prior relationship with the Assyrians, neither He had at anytime given them a law to observe, He still had the right to judge them by the natural law - the law of the conscience. Everyone has this law irrespective of whether you know the Abrahamic God or not. Since He is the Creator of the whole world, He can administer justice through the law of conscience which is a universal law. That is why God didn't send Jonah to warn them for not worshipping Him but for their wickedness which they themselves never denied. They knew themselves to be indeed wicked. The king had to call for a national repentance. They knew because they had the law of conscience, and they knew that there's a God in heaven.

I thought about the "natural law" and the law of conscience you just talked about and I actually hinted at it in a separate discussion sometimes back, but this creates some difficulties one might actually find very hard to untangle. The problem is, okay if God sends a messenger to implore a particular people or tribe who do not, in fact, know him and have never had any covenant or intimate relationship with him; if he sends a prophet (to them) to warn them of their natural wickedness and and the people did, in fact, repented of their sins, but have no knowledge of this God, or who even made the command, and have never had any genuine relationship with him and cannot accurately grasp, appreciate, or love his persona, then their repentance is meaningless, unsound, and of no effects whatsoever. It creates a terrible echo chamber that: evil is vile and bad because it is bad, and not because God forbids it. If God cannot get people to repent because of him, then I don't think there would be any motivation to do so, or to send a messenger if the people think they are doing it for a god after their own imagination, or for a local god they already serve. Experience should let you know that it's only a matter of time, they would be worse off than they actually repented. I cannot overemphasize the importance of knowing, worshiping, appreciating the one true God FIRST before doing any kind of services including repentance (because of him) and I think God wants that first. God would be glorified by the least bit of human action that FIRST acknowledge his existence, else such turning from sin has no weight and God would not need to command it.

Let's say a man, fearful to look at, came to your house in 7th century Oyo Empire when your entire family and those around you were babalawos and what have you, and said he got a message from God. Would you take him seriously? Would you even know what he means? Oh maybe I should ask you the more important question: would the Abrahamic God need to send a messenger to such a nation to warn them of what me and you would call "natural laws" and the laws of conscience?

My device screen is going off and on. I would continue tomorrow

Lukuluku69:
3. The Quran came to correct errors made by men in their presentation of God. The Jews/Israelites claimed that God only spoke to them, you agreed that God spoke to Ballam. With that alone you have just called the Jewish scribes Liars because God only speak to them.

Also Jonah was sent to me whole City. Are you saying the inhabitants don't know God? Remember they repented!

Yes, God spoke to Balaam, but we are not told that he was ever instructed to teach the people the ways, the judgment or the commands of God. There is a big difference. God talks to whom he pleases, yes, but he also does things consistent with his nature. That is like saying God should be able to make a squared-circle because he is all powerful. NO!

The story of Jonah is one that I have wrestled with recently, though. Since the ancient Kingdom of Assyria were never in a covenant with God, there should be no judgment from a prophet to the people of Nineveh from the Abrahamic God. I am still on it, though, even though I believe with utmost faith and with absolute confidence that the book is inspired. I am just looking for an explanation for the difficulty.

However, opinions are what they are - opinions. So much for the opinion that your own opinion is the right one and mine is an error despite writing mine more than a thousand years before you were even born. So much for the selective dyslexia from Muhammed. So how do we know what is truth and what is error when some are just factual information that cannot be proven from the text or with all bits of information. For instance, the Bible said Isaac was to be the sacrificed animal while the Quran said Ishmeal is. Now, both cannot be true. The bible has no reason to lie, the Quran does have good reasons to. Besides, the Bible never hides the sins of the people. We have been able to read some of the saddest, sordid tales of idolatry, incest, rape, murder, thievery, departure from God even by some renowned prophets, and all sorts of depravity - yes, in the bible. Those were not hidden, so why would it conceal so insignificant an information when there was no contrary or competing opinion at the time? So which is right and which is the factually wrong information?

Lukuluku69:

1. The Yorubas believed in a Creator God. He has others Orishas (The Chosen) who run errands or assist in Creation.

I answered you already in one of my comments.

They believed in a pantheon of gods; not in one, all powerful, supreme, wise, creator that checks all the box of the Abrahamic God.

No, they don't. And even if they do, God the creator that me and you acknowledge as supreme would not send a prophet to them because they already served the different gods of the land they are resident of. it is not possible for the residents of the land to understand, grasp, or even acknowledge a god they do not know, or have never covenanted with. God fought and rendered painful judgment on the gods of Egypt before he liberated the Jews. I am not speaking like a member of MFM, but God would have to wage a spiritual war against the gods of the land served by the people, liberate the people, give them his laws through a mediator, and the people oblige to him, then before he sends a prophet. It's a long torturous process. Seems you don't know anything at all sha, lol. The history of the black race has been riddled with fetishism right from time. The Islamic and the Christian missionaries changed the narratives a bit. Muhammad lied, period.

Deal with the truth and acknowledge that you have believed a subtle and professional liar who has mastered every tricks in the book. Deal with this fact that all your life, you have been deceived.

Lukuluku69:
1. The Yorubas believed in a Creator God. He has others Orishas (The Chosen) who run errands or assist in Creation.

2. The same way you are quoting Amos that God never revealed Himself to others is The same Right I have to quote from the Quran nah. Quran 13:36 says other Nations have benefited from God's inspiration at one time on their history.

No, you don't have the rights to quote from the Quran because the Quran claims that

1. The Quran, claiming to emanate from the Abrahamic God, has not substantially proven the authority it claims it has. As an authority and the first on the matter, the Torah proves itself. The Quran needs to be proven to be true since it came after, but sadly, it has not been proven so.

2. Its prophet is from the line of Abraham, but earlier revelations makes no such claim. In addition, there is nothing like a prophet without a law, and since the Arabs were never at any point in their history given the law of God, the Abrahamic God would not send a prophet to them to promise a great reward or to warn of his judgment. As I said earlier, the judgment is read from the constitution ,sir. No constitution (law), no judgment and hence no prophet. God is not unjust.

3. The Quran cherry picks earlier revelation as truth. It scuttles through the whole revelation; dismissing some, modifying others, and accepting a few as truth. This does not look like a book to take seriously if you would be thought of as coming from the Abrahamic God. I would not have problems with Muhammad at all if he claims to be a prophet from the line of Zoroaster or Hindi .

Lukuluku69:
Ballam was not a Jew nor from Israel.

Jonah, Job, Jethro were not Jews nor Israelites yet God revealed Himself to these guys.

You are misunderstanding me. I did not say that the Jews are the only righteous people in human history because they had the law of God. I said the Jews were the only ones in human history to have received a law from God and to be to be in a covenant with this same God, the Abrahamic god. No other nation on the face of the planet has had this privilege. There is no record of any. Not that I or even you know.

Yes, there might be extremely few humans, definitely outnumbered, and yes it may so happen that in an ancient city, we find one, two, or three people God is particularly pleased with despite never having received his laws, but I am thrusting on the words of Muhammad because he is piggybacking on a false claim of being a messenger, on being the last messenger, and on the fact that he is a prophet from the line of Abraham. His claim falsely argues that people can be instructed, scolded, and warned by a prophet when they have not received God's law and they are not in a relationship with him or even know him. That is error.

Now, on Balam - Balaam is not Jewish, granted, but the nation of which he is resident neither received, nor know the one true God. They were eventually destroyed, you know, and there is no record that God bonded with them at any point which tells a lot. God does not destroy the nation he loves and has bonded with unless they become very rebellious. We can't even tell that he pleased God. Job is not Jewish, yes, but how does one righteous person amidst the multitude negate my statement. A man can still be righteous even if he has not received God's law, but that is speaking statistically, like winning Royal Flushes in a game of Poker. Jonah is a Jew. He is mentioned in the book of 1 or 2 Kings 14 after prophesying about an event that eventually happened. Jethro isn't, but we can't tell if lived well or not.

And all I have mentioned thus far does not in anyway give conclusive evidence or even indicate in the slightest way that these "righteous ones" were sent to their own people by the same Abrahamic God that instructed Moses in the Burning Bush. You see the problem. I hope you see it. Did he send them? Actually, the question should be, did he give these ones or the lands where they lived in his life-giving laws? there is no Judgment without a constitution, after all. The judgment is read from the constitution. God is not an unjust judge, sir.

The Mistake you are making is that you take the Bible alone as the only revealed book.

Lukuluku69:
Google Search for the Zoroastrian Holy Book and read.

Their is an Hammurabi Code. Find it and read.


The Wise Men at babe Jesus crib were looking for a Deliverer as prophesied by Zarathustra in the Magi/Zoroastrian Faith, I ask you, was it the Devil that revealed that to them 600 years before Christ?

I need to ask you the more important question. Is the Zoroastrian holy book inspired by the same God that appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush? Clearly, the answer is no. I don't even have to read the book to give a definite answer. The book is a document myth and folklore passed down the ages and so also are all the others you mentioned or think of. We don't know where the wise men came from or what nationality they are in. All we know is that they came from the East. There is no correlation between the Magi/Zoroastrian Faith and the Christian God.

Lukuluku69:
I like your open-minded approach but the truth you seek can only be gotten if you research ALL.

Thank you. I like your open-mindedness to discuss about this too. . I have shake (abi na shaked, shook) your hands!

Lukuluku69:
I am Yoruba and it wasn't the Missionary or the Arabs Muslims that gave my Culture the idea of God.

No sir, this is very incorrect. They were the ones who gave your culture the idea of an Abrahamic God. Before then, you had none. The idea of a god is the fetish ones you worshiped. You need to understand that before the Islamic missionaries came, our people were neck-deep in fetishism and worshiped these gods. These gods gave them their laws and they had prophets, we call them - herbalist or babalawo.

It was still very rife and practiced deep into the 20th century. The stories, which are actually myths and folklore, of Oya, Obatalla, Sango and all the other gods were either a part of the tales propagated by these gods or they were conjured up stories to explain our origin. Man always wants to know where he came from - the chicken or the eggs which came first - kind of thoughts. Before the advent of the christian and Islamic missionaries, our culture never held onto an all-powerful, monotheistic God who created, oversees, and recompensed his creatures. They held onto their own gods which the bible calls Spirit Prince. These gods had their limits and had laws that were not always in tandem with the Abrahamic ones. If thoughts of the Abrahamic deity is not held, then well may we say that no belief in God is held whatsoever. You need to believe in a supreme, all powerful deity to have a solid belief in a deity at all.

Lukuluku69:
The Quran in Chapter 13:36 talked about a Messenger amongst all Nations. You won't see that emphatic statement in any other Book but evidence abounds that before many cultures of the World met, the idea of God has been amongst many Nations.

Abraham was at one point in his Life before a certain Priest in Salem, Moses was taught how to judge by Jethro despite having the Laws from God.

The Persians had Zarathustra, so was Bhudda, Ballam etc.

There you go, using the Quran to prove that the Quran is true. What kind of circular argument is this. Can Muhammad prove that God instructed these nations in his Laws before making another bold claim that God sends messengers to these nations when they go astray? No, of course, he can't. The truth is, Muhammad lied. It is not true at all that there is a messenger amongst nations. God would have to be known by the people before he sends messengers to them. That is not true of any nation besides the Jews. God would have to covenant himself to the people and they'd have to do likewise before he sends messengers to them. I could go on and on, but the truth is, we don't have even a tiny shred of evidence that there is a messenger from the Abrahamic god to the nations in times past. No, I am not talking of a babalawo or one of Bhudda's prophet.

Lukuluku69:
Lol

God did but of course you won't see that if you take the Bible alone as God's word and the Israelites His Children.

I am ready to see it from your point of view, that is why I am asking you to prove it.

I am begging - begging with tears of blood - for you to prove it. If you say God revealed himself to ALL nations of the world, then you should be able to prove that he revealed himself to at least one other nation besides the Jews. The truth is, no, he didn't.

From the time God made the first man until now, God has not revealed himself to any other nation, covenanted himself with them, and gave them his laws EXCEPT the Jews. Of course, I am talking about the timeline of human history that excludes humans who lived before the great Flood. Can you prove it, if yes, please do.

Dtruthspeaker:
Yet He rarely spoke to them. Then He prohibited them from touching His things or even serving in His Office (Temple)

Not to talk of the fact that according to Him, women and girls are Twice dirtier than a man.

Not to talk about these verses show the people God hated and hates.

Leviticus 20:23
Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.

Leviticus 26:30
I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and heap your remains on the remains of your idols, for My soul shall abhor you.

Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.

Psalm 5:6

You destroy those who speak falsehood;
The Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.

So, no I do not say that God did not create women for He also created Satan, but as we already know and have experienced, if our creation whether car or phone or mannequin does not please us, we shall discard and destroy them.

Which we can see as already happened to woman, so your statement is not relevant and null and neither has it exculpated women from their guilt of evil.

It is very difficult to decompartmentalise divine doings or his ways, much less explain these things. I would not even try.

Like, how do we explain the fact that God created two animals; one he deems unclean and not to be eaten and the other, he deems deem clean and to be eaten, and yet, it is the same God who created both. It is very difficult to delve into God's mind to see things from his point of view and I am not going to assist you to do that.

I don leave this space for you. I am hungry. Bye! Ciao!

Lukuluku69:
God revealed Himself to ALL Nations of the World.

Research it .

Good! Good one. Welcome to the party. I am more than pleased to serve you breakfast and lunch.

Okay, so it jollof rice, fried rice, or both you want for breakfast, or maybe you wanna eat one of my favourite snacks Dankwa made from tiger nuts, or maybe it's big-big tiger nuts, or Nkwoba, or Isi Ewu (goat head), or spaghetti and all sorts of assorted added, or......

DO you want? You want? Just tell me what you want to eat I am more than ready to have you served chicken wings, friend potatoes, toasted shawarma, baked shit, camel legs or whatever (served on your very table) for lunch? What do you want to eat sef?

Well, newsflash. God did not. God didn't even reveal himself to MOST nations of the world and here you are, here you are talking of God revealing himself to ALL nations of the world. HA! What a bold, bold, audacious claim. You said what again? Do you have one, not two, even one, not two, I need just one documented evidence that the Abrahamic God (who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush) revealed himself to another human race, tribe, or ethnicity and gave them his laws at any point in their history? Can you prove it? DO you have one?

The burden of proof is on you to show that God revealed and covenanted himself to at least one other nation besides the Jews. It's on you to prove, not on me to disprove because the glaring evidence before us says there is none. At least we have no documented record of any.

See, if you can prove it, then I would believe you and retract my claims, but the truth is, YOU CAN'T. Not that I have excess but for the sake of this discussion, I can even motivate you with a little wads off naira note to get you to do your research and share it here with me. I guess God revealed himself to the Yoruba race before we embraced African Traditional religion too. Lol.

I'd tell you what God said through Amos the the third chapter and second verse of his book: From among all the families on the earth, I have been intimate with you alone. That is why I must punish you for all your sins.”

Moses asked the Israelite in the book of Deuteronomy: "Has any nation ever heard the voice of God speaking from fire—as you did—and survived?"

Of course, none.

Dtruthspeaker:
Muslims are children of Satan so you can see that his aim was to blaspheme since he is pained to see that there is a very good explanation for why God appears to hate women where devils like him wanted to believe that it is because of bias and sexism.

Rather than to appreciate that He sees all the great evils women do and cause to be done, is why He hates them

Chairman. God does not hate women. He never hates his own handiwork. I am not going to start a Sunday School class with you: God loves the trees, the sheep, the goats, the fishes, the landscape, Earth, Pluto, the Sun, Mercury, the Antelopes, the wild animals, the domestic animals, matter, dark matter, black-holes, the stars, the galaxies because these and many more are the works of his hands and especially those who have been created in his very image - man and woman.

Sure, there are bad women just as there are bad men, but it is these bad traits that God hates not their persona at the species level. These bad traits might make them abhorrent (as it is said in the bible, God is angry with the wicked everyday), but he does not abhor all of a particular species. He might, for instance, despise a moral creature, but not all moral creatures at the species level. He might abhor individual specie, individual woman, in this case, but not all women. There is a difference. When you say God hates women, it is too generic. No, he doesn't.

Women are as much a work of God as men are.

AntiChristian:
Does God hate Mary too?

A rike mashi wando kar ya gudu! A rike mashi wando kar ya gudu!

Ina yake, A! Mungan shi! Gashi nan! A rike mashi wando kar ya gudu! A rike mashi wando, kar ya gudu!

By your username alone, you put it upon yourself to antagonize Christianity and the Judaic faith and cannot answer oversimplified questions.

If I put it upon myself to antagonize Islam nkor, people like you would leave this forum.

Ina yake, a rike mashi wando, kar ya gudu! A rike mashi wando kar ya gudu!

@OP: You are really not a truth seeker, or are you?

Do you think God hates the works of his hands?

SheikhMuniru:
It is your jehovah that hates women n girls

Mellow down a little, please. What do you hope to achieve with this next-level profanity? What?

God is not a name, but a title.

What you speak of lightly is actually God's proper name, a name to be remembered for all ages.

AntiChristian:
This is because Moses was sent to a particular people and not to the world. Some Prophet were sent to their people, some a nation and the last Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wasalam was sent to the world of mankind and Jinn. While the previous messages were not meant to be used till the world ends.The Qur'an is meant to be till the world ends!

God did send messengers to all nations. We are only informed of a few of them. And Torah is a major scripture with laws. There are other revealed scriptures to Abraham, Jacob, Ishmael, Isaac and others! Abraham and Noah were not Jews!

Allah sent messengers to the nations of the world at particular times. It is clear Allah is just as He would not punish anyone without prior message.

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [Al-Isra 17:15]

Continuing:

1. The Jews entered the Promised Land through warfare and would almost certainly expand by the same act. It seems logical then to infer that God's tool of propagating the Torah and himself (by implication) is a very effective strategy at the time - warfare. Conversion happens by force, not by some flowery words. Preaching to conquered territories would come naturally. They wouldn't have to be instructed to do it. After all, the nation that propagates the ideas of its God and its religion is not the one that is commanded by its holy books to do so, but the one that succeeds quite well in the act of warfare. That should be quite obvious.

Fighting wars in ancient times is almost inevitable. There would always be reasons to fight. And the more successful you are in the battlefield, the more likely you are to proselytize people and get nations to your God. God already promised and guaranteed victory to the Jewish nations if they obeyed his laws, so it is not true at all that Moses was sent to only Israel and not to the world at large. If God was going to give them a Land through wars, he would almost certainly keep them and expand their territories through the same act. It seems it's only a matter of time before subjugated nations and people worship the one true God even though they would not willingly worship initially.

God does not have to spell out an obvious truth (in the Torah) on how he was going to use the Jews to draw mankind to himself after giving the Law. If the Jews expanded and conquered territories, wouldn't people be forced to accept their religion?

The point I am making is that Muhammad's claim that he Torah was sent through Moses for the benefit of the Jews is gross error. The Torah is supposed to benefit all of mankind for all ages.

2.

AntiChristian:
This is because Moses was sent to a particular people and not to the world. Some Prophet were sent to their people, some a nation and the last Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wasalam was sent to the world of mankind and Jinn. While the previous messages were not meant to be used till the world ends.The Qur'an is meant to be till the world ends!

I have it sorted (device issue) so you can always count on as faster response time. I am back online. Give it to me hot-hot!

Now, I hope that your circular train of thought that allows Muhammad to declare as scripture whatever he thinks is true without using previous revelation of God to validate his claims would not hold here. I hope this discussion would not turn into another whatever Muhammad-says-is-the-truth because Muhammad said it.

Now in my secondary school days, while I was a student, I had teachers renowned for dishing handouts with longer handwritten notes. Usually, the class rep or one of the most intelligent students in the class gets these teachers' handwritten notes. The intelligent student or the rep then copies the note with his friends. He (as well as his friends) pass their copied note on to others who also do the same. In a span of a day or two or maybe three, all students have the notes copied already.

Who is to say that the teacher wronged the students getting his notes copied this way if he spends a large chunk of his classroom period explaining the contents thereof? Who is to decide how the teacher is to get his note across to the students? Who can actually call the teacher to question for this teaching method? Is he not still the teacher? Is God not still GOD and even more sovereign than a classroom teacher? What if I told you that you're WRONG. Actually, you're wrong because half-truths can still contextually pass off as lies. Where did you get the idea that Moses was sent only to the people of Israel and not to the world at large?

He was sent to deliver the people of Israel, but does that mean he wasn't sent to the world too. And WHO TOLD YOU THAT YAHWEH WOULD NOT BE PREACHED, GLORIFIED, AND MANY DISCIPLES MADE FOR HIM BY THOSE KNOWN AS CUSTODIANS OF THE LAW (AS HIS MESSENGERS) WHEN THEY WAGE AND WIN WARFARE BY HIS ASSISTANCE? Just because some student would, for various reasons, complain that they couldn't copy the given handwritten note does not in anyway speak of inefficiency on the teacher's part. Does a teacher have to give each of the students his handwritten notes to get it across? Does he have to? Does God have to? Does he have to come down with attendant fire, smoke, cloud, trumpets, leery eyes, trembling joints to make his laws known? Shouldn't testimony from those he has covenanted with suffice for those who sincerely want to seek him (just as Faith in the existence of GOD is) since his goodness, power, justice, his laws, his being and many more speak with much volume and with incontrovertible evidence.

Would a witty manufacturer be any less just, good, fair, kind, honest, and patient if he chooses to deal with one big dealer as opposed to many small buyers for his wares? Would you call his character to question for that? Looking at this from a purely financial prudential point of view, what should be termed wiser: To deal with a million twenty-five Naira buyers of a particular ware or to deal with a single billion Naira buyer? Meditating on God's character, do you think that if God were a manufacturer, he would want to deal with many small buyers as opposed to one big trusted dealer?

God almost never deal with all of mankind (or all nations) otherwise he would have to come down every time to correct, reward, or scold his creatures on an individual basis and that is why he has representatives. We call them the prophets. If it is not unrighteous of God to use his prophets from antiquity vis-a-vis a direct communication with many small buyers (which, in this case, are the rebellious ones) then it stands to reason that God wanting the world of mankind to know and feel their way to him through a tribe he has chosen - which, in this case, is the Jewish tribe is perfectly in line with sound reasoning. You need to explain why God, dealing with people on a case-by-case basis, individually, is not a more balanced, fairer, and better approach than using representatives and why God doesn't use that approach. If it is okay to use representatives to call the people to order. These representatives whom we call prophets, then it should be okay, too, to use a kind of representatives for the whole of the human race. We call this kind of representatives the Jews. In the history of the human race, we have not had another documented people who are known as custodians of the Law of God. The manner, circumstances, and events surrounding how they received the law speaks with loud decibel that they are the chosen ones, or class rep. I ask you, what if God wants the class (the world) to get the note (the law) from their class rep (a chosen tribe, which in this case, is Jewish)?

Your take on Muhammad being the last prophet is also wrong. When Moses was sent to the people of Israel and not to the world at large as you're insinuating, who, then, was sent to the world at large, or are you saying mankind had no need for a prophet sent to it at that time? Tell me his name and where he lived. I want to know what laws he preached and how he received it. You cannot, for the life of you, exonerate God for not taking responsibilities for misguidance if he had to wait till the 7th century when thousands and thousands of people had roamed the earth and died without a clue to his laws before sending a prophet for the benefit of all of mankind. If you say none was sent, should God be blamed for misguidance since for a large part of humanity until the 7th century when Muhammad came, mankind had no laws or may I say a prophet. And even the very idea that Muhammad is even a prophet of God is extremely nonsensical: were the Arabs at any point in their history custodians of the law, or given the Law of God?



I hate to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. I prefer to rely on reasoning and logic, but let me enter the waters a bit. Your assertion that prophets were sent to their own people and not the world at large is laughably false. In the book of Deuteronomy, we read about instructions for admittance of non Jewish nations - the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, etc, etc - into the designated temple where God is worshiped. If the law as given to Moses is not intended for the world at large, then there should be no provisions for these nations. Please read Deu. 23: 3 - 7.

God does not need to give each student (nations, in this case) the Law to get them to worship him. His intention as I stated earlier is that the nations feel their way towards him through his representatives especially the Laws he has given them.[/quote]

AntiChristian:
Christmas Is Idolatrous And Unscriptural - Pastor Kumuyi

Christmas is demonic - Pastor Olukoya

So why are Christians still celebrating it?

You have not responded to my complaints. If the Law i.e the Torah, is supreme by virtue of its authority and the circumstances surrounding its revelation, why should any sane person shove it aside for new laws?

If you say that God gave the Torah to the Jews then you just lied. That is a lie. What then should be the guiding principles for non-Jews who lived at the time the Torah was given? And if God didn't deem it unfair to monopolise himself then by revealing his revelations to only the Jews (of the time) and not all nations as you say of the Torah, this, of course, raises many questions about his justice and character.

If it right to reveal himself to only one nation at a point in history where there were many nations, don't you think God's actions are always right since he neither learns nor improve upon his knowledge.

Hello Anti-Christian ;

Sorry, it took me several days to get back to you. My device developed some fault which boxed me to a corner called Offline Mode. I have been offline since I last responded to you. I would not be able to respond swiftly, should you respond, because I haven't sort it out yet. Had to use a sibling's device to get to you and would not be doing this again.

But you may still respond, when I'm back online, I would reply.

Coughs! Coughs! Okay, so you said:

AntiChristian:
This is essentially false. All nations got one or more messengers from God ! But as time goes on the message becomes corrupted or entirely forgotten!
Noah was sent to his people and later the flood happened. Again People populated the land and reverted to their corrupt ways! Noah as well as Abraham were not Jews! Same Noah and Abraham became the ancestors of the Arabs, Israelites and others!

No, you're so dead wrong, man. This is all shades of WRONG that is borne out of a very faulty reasoning of God's ways and workings in time.

First off, to speak of a prophet preaching in God's name presupposes a LAW. A dilemma I'm very sure your didn't think very well. It also presupposes an intimate or may I say an established relationship with the law giver whom he represents. There would be no prophet to scold, no prophet to correct, to warn, and to implore if there hadn't FIRST be a law highlighting in very vivid details divine pleasure and displeasure.

Imagine a Mathematics teacher who comes into the classroom and says, "Okay class, so how are you doing today. I'm going to give you a classwork on a topic we'd treat later. Just do your best!"

So after grading the students, all ninety but one student failed. The teacher is going nuts and sends one of his assistant to rain fire and brimstone on the students because they all failed. Now imagine one Tomboy, as his classmates used to call him, jumps up before his classmates and say - but sir, why all these theatrics, but you didn't teach us na.

Would you blame him? I'm sure you wouldn't. God would not suffer to be profaned by depraved wretches who might know some of his laws and don't obey it because they:

1. Have no true knowledge of the living God - whether there's only one, two, or a million gods!

2. They were never personally instructed with clearly defined instructions on what was required of them.

3. They didn't consent to it.

Reason dictates that no one gets punished for breaking laws that was never given to them even if these laws are Natural Laws. A wretch can lay onto the claim that although he actually committed murder, he was never at any point instructed NOT TO.


Again, natural laws can not be used as a reason
God sends prophets. No. You clearly have the agency backwards. It is not so important to Good that men turn away from vices for its inherent vileness and evil than that they turn away from these because of him. He should be the reason men turn away from vices, not because vices are inherently bad. Bad actions do not become good actions because the actor now has good actions as his ultimate end. No. Bad actions only become good actions when God is the reason and the ultimate end of such. Bad actions only become good actions if the actor does turn away from such with God in mind. Even the devil dislikes murder because there would be no one left to worship him if we all start a blood-letting campaign.

Your are trying to use Noah to prove your point, but this point is mute. If you read the instructions God gave to Noah, you'd observe something striking. Going into the Ark, shortly before the Flood, God told Noah to separate, in definite numbers, clean and unclean animals.

This screams with loud decibel that a LAW had already been given pre-Noah otherwise Noah would be like: But what are you talking about, O God. Clean and unclean animal, you say! But LORD GOD, animals do not have clean and unclean written over them. What do you mean. How do I identify them.

But that is not the case. Instead, we read that Noah understood the instructions because a law had already been given. That is why he, Enoch, and others could stand in God's stead as prophets warning the people. Besides, it is not inconceivable to think that God gave his Laws to the first man, Adam, which Adam passed down to his descendants.


Did that reign last? No! But why? The great Flood which wiped out many text records. So God had to start again after the Flood and chose Abraham. There point is clear, most nations after the Flood have gone their ways, wandering without God except the chosen one, Abraham, through his son Isaac.

If a prophet comes to me in my wen little Sango-Oya-Obatalla infested world and he talks in the name of God, warning and imploring me to repent of my evil deed, would I listen to him? Sure! Maybe! It might, after all, be a dire warning from Sango to turn to him. Sango is calling me! The thing is, I would not even be able to grasp the core of this prophet's message because I do not have an adequate understanding of the God he's talking about. I would need to be in a relationship sort of to know what or where he is getting at.

AntiChristian:
Of course the Bible also says Jesus was a man and all man has sinned and come short..... So Muhammad as well as all humans are not free of sins!

You should tell us the full context. What you mentioned there is John 8:48. And in John 8:37, Jesus mentioned that they wanted to kill him because they have no room for his word! So what crime did he commit for them to want to kill him! That's the context!

I'm not arguing the context with you, I know the context. Jesus said what he said, period. When accused, no one born of a worman can absolve himself of ever committing sin. It's crazy statement. We would admit with something like this: Yes, I know I'm a sinner, but I didn't commit such-and-such. Not come out bluntly to say, who can accuse me truthfully of ever committing sin. That is not something humans can say. Like I said in my prior post, Jesus is more than a prophet, far, far more than human, but I cannot say much of his divinity. However, one thing we can say with all certainty is that he dwelt in Heaven before his birth.

AntiChristian:
Daniel saw Jesus? lol. The future messenger talked about fits many other people than Jesus! And Jesus didn't exist before he was born! That "before Abraham was i am" verse na lie! He never existed anywhere! Just as he's unaware of anything on earth at the moment!

Nobody existed before they were born! All these are mere fabricated conjectures upon Jesus to make him share of God's divinity! It is only the Christian God that needs partners and son to help in his dominion! Abeg your premise is already faulty!

The joke is on you. I am telling you the truth, but you would rather contend with everything. Your prophet has been imbued from on high and has now infused a contentious spirit into you. The joke is on you, not me. Daniel talks of the admittance of the Holy one into God's presence. He also gives a very precise timeline of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the coming of this same Holy one, his death, and the destruction of the Temple. This is a very rigid and specific prophecy that is very, very time-bound. It cannot fit into more than one persona. The joke is on you. Oh sorry, the joke is actually on Muhammad because God schemed the liar and cleverly hid this book from his sight even though it was written thousands of years before he was born.

AntiChristian:
Who classified the Books in this way i.e. Law, Prophets and Writings? When was it classified? So What you are saying should be if God wanted his son to have died for humans, he should have died for everyone before Adam to save us the stress! He shouldn't have waited for several millennia to come and die! I guess God was unaware of what would happen so he forgot to plan ahead!

My point about the Law being the most supreme still stands gidigba. I tanda for here. The Law is the highest and the most supreme authority for all true adherents. It was given at the highest level of prophecy. It was given with God coming.... DOWN! It was given with fire, smoke, and screams. It was given with thousands, if not millions, of eye-witnesses. Other prophets receive their messages through a sharp burning in their bones, some received theirs through a loud ringing in their ears, some through dreams, trance, or other states. Some received their message through the phenomenon of nature but the Law, the Law, haha, the Torah, as revealed to Moses is the highest, the most supreme, the loftiest, the absolute of any kind of prophecy. In fact, some of its messages were written by God himself.

Dem wan collect phone. Bye!

This is the first point I want to address. You said:

AntiChristian:
Every nation had messengers sent to them!

WRONG! VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG! Every nation has not had messengers sent to them. In fact, most nation have not had an intimate relationship with God like the Jews had. God permitted the Arabs and other human race to suffer in their idolatry, to go their various ways for many, many years before the Law and even after, even the Arabs, for many years before Muhammad was born. Do I hear you still insist that - No, God did not suffer most nations to go their way for a large part of history? Well, if that is not the case, you would not be in need of Islamic missionaries from distant lands to preach Islam to you. The messengers from your own nation as sent by God should have proselytized you before those Arab missionaries had the slightest clue of your location on the map. Why do you need a bunch of missionaries thousands of miles away if God has not suffered you and your peers to wander in your ways? It is because God has not called most nations to himself and hasn't prophets from that bunch, and that is why people from distant lands have to come over with their parchments and scrolls to preach their own religion to you. My ancestors were traditionalist and so were yours. If God has not suffered most nations to go their various ways, there would be, by any rough estimate, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of religious groups, movements, and religion each claiming to emanate from the Abrahamic God with their versions of the truth and there would have proof to back it up.

AntiChristian:
Scrutinize it and show your standard of criticism so that we can judge the Bible too with your standard!

There's nothing to scrutinize about Muhammed because he even admitted that he is a sinner.

Talking to the Jews, Christ and none else could say what he said. Not Moses, not Daniel, Ezekiel, or any of the other prophets of the past could say what Christ said. Asking, he said, "Which of you can truthfully[b] accuse me of sin[/b]?" That is a very bold statement. A very loud statement! Can Muhammad say same? No, of course not, he can't.

I don't have to repeat this. Like other prophets before him, he is a sinner, period. And if we would judge him by God's righteous standards in his morality and day-to-day life he would fail woefully and miserably.

AntiChristian:
Those who read the old testament alone do not believe in Jesus at all. You must have the prior knowledge of Jesus and the trinity to see both in the old testament. Jews don't see Jesus anywhere in the old testament! So why is this lie against the Prophet of Islam?

No, you must not. The Prophets of Old predicted with great clarity the coming of Christ. Daniel gives a very precise timeline of his coming and of his exist. In fact, Daniel saw Jesus. If you doubt me, go and read Daniel 7 very well; when you've done that, identify who the Son of Man is. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Malachi, Joel and other Jewish prophets talked about a future messenger. Now, let me ask you: Did Moses exist before he was born? NO! What about Elijah? NO! Daniel? NO! Now, let me ask you again, did Christ exist before he was born as a human being? YES! There is a hell of a difference, my man.

Going further, did Muhammad exist before he was born? No, of course not. You see, all human existence is contingent on their birth, but the same is not true and cannot be said of Christ. The divinity of Christ is a hot topic, even in some Christian circles and I do not claim to have a definite answer, but whether you believe Christ is not God or not the Son of God or not... Well, we all can agree that he is one of Heaven's dwellers before his birth. He was with God in Heaven and was sent down to earth before his birth. That cannot be said of anyone, not Moses, Ezekiel, or even Muhammad. All prophets are called to serve in time. After their birth. Their prophet-hood is contingent on their birth. Not so with Christ. He was called outside time. Before his human birth. That makes him more than just another human prophet even as the circumstances surrounding his birth clearly shows, so no, I am not peddling lies against your prophet.

AntiChristian:
What did he contradict? Make clear your claims? When the people brought a fornicator to Jesus for stoning according to the law of Moses did Jesus let them use the law on her?

God's laws can neither be improved upon or redacted. It should not be added to and nothing should be subtracted from it. What I am trying to say is this, there's a chain of authority in the Law. Yes, all scriptures do not have equal authority. You heard that right. Let me fixate on the Old since it is the cornerstone, the foundation of anything that might follow. Now, in the Old Testament which the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, there's a chain of authority. The books are divided into three: the Law, which is the first five books of Gen - Deu., then the prophets, which encompasses several prophetic books and then finally the Writings. So, we have the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The chain of authority is as follows; The Law first and foremost, and then the Prophets, and then the Writings. If, for example, a book grouped among the Writings contradicts the Law, then the Law is to be followed, or if a book grouped among the Prophets contradicts the Law, even still, the Law is to be followed. The Law is the be all and end all of all true religion. It is the first and the last instruction for all true adherents. Now, as you know, Muhammad claims to be a prophet (I might have to write a piece today or morrow and tag you along) but he contradicts the Law. He contradicts the Law in no small way. He does this in two ways: He adds to its instructions, he cast doubts in the instructions given, and then removes from it. He is guilty of all three. All the prophets who came before him neither added, subtracted, or gave a new body of laws as revealed from God. None at all. If God wanted his people to fast more than once a year, for instance, or if he wanted his worshipers to pray five times in a day, he would not have to wait more than 2000 years to effect it.

Jesus could bend the rules because he is more than a human prophet and not under the chain of authority I just spoke about. He is not bound to the law. He is greater than the lawgiver. Muhammad is not. The prophets who came before him are not.

AntiChristian:
Didn't God destroyed the people of Noah with flood?
Also the people of Lot?
Also Pharaoh and his armies?

And don't add lies to your speech! Muhammad met some scripts of the Injeel and Torah not "the Bible"!

What is the Bible if not the Gospel and the Torah. And how do you know how many scripts he had. He even had pseudo-epigraphas, non-canonical books, deutero-cannonical books and many more. Lol.

KingAbdulazeez:
😂 😂
congratulations 🎉🎉
but why are you still have ₦30 as your balance ?

Ha, Nairaland, Nairaland!

Pros at detecting all sorts of scam from several miles off.

Shake my hands!

Butmight15:

Na who be dis ?

xukwaa:
There is one that lives below me. He has been a nightmare to my kids from the first day I moved in. Always complaining about the kids making noise. The house neighbours agreed that no one should also play loud music and that children are not expected to play around but sit quietly. I have never met the landlord since when I moved in. I don't even know whether he exists. All of a sudden, the very very dumb lawyer brought a quit notice without even seeing me first to discuss. I was about going extreme with the whole thing but decided to let it be.
I was thinking that whole thing was a scam. The neighbours hold meetings without involving me.

All I see is turbulence. Wild, wild storm!

Congratulations, you dodged a bullet.

Please, shake my hands!

Run as fast as you can and while you run, you feet should be touching the back of your head. You shouldn't be living in a place where your kids cannot be whom they are - kids!

Let your kids breathe, please. You sef need some non-turbulent moments. Life is too short to deal with all the artificial storms you mentioned. If you are not at peace at home and with your neighbours, then you cannot have inner peace.

iichidodo:
[color=#1986BC] I'm not friendly to my neighbors, period.[/color]

But even better is when you are neither friendly nor unfriendly to your neighbours. It is a skill. Master it!

AntiChristian:
By what standard do you judge the moral failings that are not in the Bible from your God?

I will like you to mention the theological opinion! Let's dive into the emilokan mentality and the Putrefying nonsense from the Bible!

Muhammad's moral or might I say religious standing, if scrutinized, would be found to be very deficient, but I don't judge him on the basis of that since his humanity, like other humans, would pale in comparison to God's righteous demands. In that regards, he is everything but a saint.

However, what I judge him by is his theological opinion and his claims about being the last line of prophets of the "Abrahamic convenant."

He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Let me point to one of his theological blunders: the death of Christ.

Muhammad claimed that Christ was not crucified, but was only made to appear so. Clearly, this man has not a single clue what he is talking about. If he contradicted only the New Testament, that would have bee a little tolerable, but he contradicts the Old as well.

He is the second person to trigger a campaign of calumny against Moses under his Awalokan mentality claiming like Miriam did - Has God spoken to only Moses - no - he has spoken to all of us too! It is extremely disconcerting I must say that he would, in his tales of lies, contradict the Law, and not in one or two or three isolated cases, and yet, this same man claims to be a confirmation of what has been sent before him.

You cannot, for the life of you, compare the bible and the Quran. You cannot. You should not! That would reduce you to something less than nothing. It is the Quran that should be scrutinized, not the bible. If God suffered the Arabs to worship idols, to continue in their paths for many hundred of thousands of years AFTER THE BIBLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND CANONIZED, then it is the Quran that should be scrutinized not the bible. Muhammad met the bible, and not the other way round.