₦airaland Forum

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I challenge any one to honestly reveal one text that points to a change from sabbath to Sunday.

You're such a comical character. Hear you "challenge" anyone to offer answers to your weak assumptions and yet YOU ran away from the 17 challenges I offered in the other thread. Even when you tried to play tennis with history in this thread, stimulus was on hand to set your misconceptions straight.

I haven't read so many people arguing for a "CHANGE" of sabbath observation from Saturday to Sunday. What we have consistently been speaking of here is that "the Sabbath Law was NOT made for Christians" - and rather not about what day it should be observed by Christians at all.

Bobbyaf:
Not one of the eight NT references to the 1st day of the week have given any such command to keep that day in celebrating the resurrection.

I expected that you would rope yourself again with this issue of the first day. I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it, so that I could point you back to the OT about what the first day represents!

Those who worship God based on the OT Law of the Sabbath have to recognize two things:

(a) their worship emphasizes creation - the OLD creation. It is for this reason that they should look unto Jesus, who brought in a better hope; so that through the Redemptive titles of His blood, we may now be called the children of God; and rightfully address God as FATHER. That is why when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we do it in remembrance of HIM ("this do in remembrance of ME" - 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 ). We are not here speaking of remembering a day as Moses commanded Israel ("Remember the Sabbath day" - Exo. 20:8 ). This again should remind us of Paul's caution that Christians should not be judged in respect of these festivities: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, of the sabbath days" (Col. 2:16).

(b) sabbatarians would have to strictly follow the stipulations of the Sabbath Law and not make eexcuses for any EXEMPTIONS. The Law of the Sabbath made no room for exemptions of any kind; and to fail in this is also to throw the claims of the Sabbath behind their backs!

Jesus Christ being our divine rest Himself, our hope is no longer based on the law of the old life emphasizing the seventh day. Rather, God wants us to focus on the NEW creation, which has its basis on the FIRST DAY! That is why so many dear saints of God who argue for an OT sabbath fail to see that even in the LAW, there was a sabbath of the FIRST DAY!! Surprised? Here, let me remind you:


The SABBATH of the FIRST Day!

"And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you" (Exo. 12:16).

Whatever happened on the SEVENTH day was also applicable on the FIRST day! And remember that this was first mentioned even before the Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 20!

"In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein." (Lev. 23:7 & 8 ).

"On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein. (Lev. 23:35 & 36).

Now, carefully observe that the first day is also the eighth day as is clear above. But what is the penalty of breaking the Sabbath? To excuse it under any exemptions meritted DEATH - ""Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." (Exo 35:2 & 3).

Now, Bobbyaf, if you have been cooking or warming your food at all on the Sabbath days, you have long been asking for the stringent penalty of breaking the Sabbath - no excuses please! "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10:28 ).

But then, what is the point of outlining the rest of those two days - the FIRST and SEVENTH days? In simple terms, to demonstrate that God was inidcating that the True Rest was a matter of the first day! That is why you will find that, while the seventh day sabbath had elaborate stipulations and stringent punitive measures, the first day was simply a day of one loud activity" CELEBRATION!!

The first day was a day of feasting, a day for celebrations and blowing of trumpets! Look again at the Sabbath of the First Day -

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation". (Lev. 23:24)

As Christians, this is the celebration of a feast of deep significance:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Cor. 5:7 &

The Bible says in Heb. 4:8 - "For if Jesus (i.e., Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. God had been indicating this "other day" - the FIRST DAY - as inidcative of the NEW creation and a day of victory and celebrations in His Son, Jesus Christ.

As Christians, we live to rejoice in the blessing of victory which God gave us in His Son; and we worship Him, not only as the Creator, but more so as our FATHER! We find our True Rest in God's holy Son, Jesus - and in Him and Him alone, we rejoice in hope of the fulfillment of the victory and blessing of the New creation and New Jerusalem.

The ritualistic observance of a seventh-day sabbath has no place in the glories of the NT. It is either sabbatarians keep the Sabbath Law on God's terms and make NO EXEMPTIONS for their failures; or they seek to understand the true Sabbath of the first day which we find fulfilled in Jesus Christ!

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Have you noticed the phrase "for in six days, "? This was the reason given why God intends for His people to also rest. In other words God wants us to rest in order to celebrate with Him His act of creating. Each time His people rest, including peoples from all dispensations, in accordance with His request, we commemorate His act of Creatorship, and pay Him due recognition.

As Christians, we find our rest in Jesus Christ Himself, rather than in commerating any special day. Further, not only do we recognize and celebrate God's awesome power in creation, but it is only in the New Covenant that we can address God as FATHER.

Why so? Simply because in Jesus Christ and in Him alone, we find:

the NEW birth (James 1:18 );

the NEW creation (2 Cor. 5:17 & Gal. 6:15);

the NEW testament (1 Cor. 11:25 & Heb. 12:24);

the NEW man (Eph. 2:15);

the NEW and living way (Heb. 10:20)

the NEW Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12)

and the NEW heavens and NEW earth (2 Pet. 3:13)

He makes all things new, my dear Bobbyaf; and to hold plod on with a Sabbath Law of the OT which you cannot defend under the power of the New Covenant is to base your hope on "that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:12); and also to miss the real purpose of the True Rest in Jesus Christ.

Bobbyaf:
Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all races. They began mankind and all those who follow them are called mankind.

Jesus comes along in the NT and tries to redefine the true purpose of the sabbath, and made a profound statement like this,

"the sabbath was made for man"

You and I kow that the word "man" is used generically to mean mankind which includes not just males, but females.

This does not automatically mean that Adam and Eve were given the Ten Commandments - we've discussed this before contextually; and you have failed to provide answers to my 17 questions in the other thread on the same topic.

Bobbyaf:
Now why would anyone limit that word mankind to the jews? Why would God from before sin manifested itself, institute the sabbath, and set it aside as a holy day, and then wait for almost 3000 years after creation to specifically hand it to a bunch of hebrews in order for them to define its purpose, and to live out those purposes?

Which simply goes to show a lazy way of reasoning. I simply ask you to please do two things:

1. Give me the verse in Genesis where God expressly gave Adam and Eve the Law of the Sabbath

2. Give me verses in Genesis to show HOW Adam and Eve understood the STIPULATIONS of the Sabbath which they did not have.

You cannot shortchange anyone here by obfuscating the context of Mark 2:27; and we have dealt with this in the other thread mentioned earlier.

It is characteristic for God to speak prophetically about an issue as if it already has happened; but then any careful reader knows that the prophetic statements were meant for the future. Just one example:

(a) When Isaiah prophesied about the birth of Christ, he used the present tense of his time as if it already had happened: "For unto us a child IS born, unto us a son IS given" (Isaiah 9:6). Yet we know that it was several centuries later that the prophecy was fulfilled and its purpose explicated.

When God declared the rest in Gen. 2:3, He did not pronounce it as a COMMANDMENT, for He was looking beyond a ritualistic observance to the time when He would send forth His Son as the only rest for mankind! It took more than 3000 years for the divine purpose of that Rest to be manifested and offered to the mankind.

Bobbyaf:
Why the hebrews? Could it be that through the hebrews God would re-inact its true purpose that was intended for all mankind, and that by entrusting them with His divine oracles they in turn would evangelise the pagan world who had lost all sight of a Creator-God? Is there a relationship betwen the creatorship of God and the sabbath?

As someone has well pointed out earlier, there were other people who knew God and worshipped Him besides the Jews. Moses' father-in-law was the priest of Midian - read Exodus 18. There were several other non-Hebrew people who still knew and worshipped God; and it is wrong to conclude that others should be called "the pagan world" just because God chose the Hebrews.

Secondly, the nation of Israel were not chosen to "evangelize" any other nation. Who were their evangelists? They were a non-proselytizing nation, who only received sojourners on the same Law that by wich they lived (Exo. 12:49 & Num. 15:16).

Bobbyaf:
To argue that Christ came to abolish the creation sabbath, as opposed to the other ceremonial sabbaths, and to establish another day to commemorate His resurrection is also vain and pointless.

What is actually vain and pointless is to predicate your assumptions on the Mosaic Law by quoting Exodus, and then rebelling against the same Law by trying to justify your excuses on so-called EXEMPTIONS! That is simply saying that you are trying to keep the Sabbath Law based on your own terms, and not on the stipulations of the same Law that were clearly given in the OT.

Bobbyaf:
There has never been a commansd to celebrate His resurrection by utilising Sunday, nor has there ever been a command from Christ or His disciples to nullify His holy day.

Is there a command from Christ to celebrate His Resurrection on Saturday? Where? How?

@Bobbyaf,

Although I'm very busy at the moment, I just had to come in here and make a few comments on your continued debate on this subject. You have been mixing up issues, and that is why you keep missing the point for that very reason. It is always safe to keep within the declarations of Scripture and not interpolate them with human reasoning (eisegesis). And here are a few of such interpolations:

Bobbyaf:
She had to have desired or coveted the forbidden fruit based on the ideas that Lucifer placed in her head. Since the fruit was forbidden her act of picking it made her a thief. She stole what was expressly forbidden.

The Bible never called Eve a "thief", nor accuse her of "stealing". Rather, the Word expressly declares her sin in simple terms as: "but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). This answers to what was recorded in Gen. 3:13 - "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Bobbyaf:
The fact that she placed Lucifer's ideas above God's brings into sharp focus the command of placing another god before the Creator God.

That again is not what Scripture declares. Eve was nowhere accused of 'placing another god before the Creator God'; and to make it sound as if that were the case is to force one's own ideas into the divine declarative. You're trying to accuse Eve of issues that even God Himself never once accused her of.

Bobbyaf:
The fact that Adam placed his wife before God made him guilty also of placing another god before the Creator God. And that is why the apostle James reminds us that if we break one we are guilty of all. There is a common thread that runs through the divine law.

Quite to the contrary, the Bible simply says that "Adam was not deceived" (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam simply disobeyed God's commandment; but that does not constitute a stretched meaning of his having placed his wife before God, or that he placed another god before the Creator God.

If one were to apply the same rule to your own case, would it be fair to say that you have placed another god before the Creator God by choosing to make exemptions to the Law of the Sabbath where the OT made no room for such exemptions? If it does not apply, why so? And if you can narrow the rule in your own case, why stretch it wider in applying it to Adam and Eve even though God did not once accuse them of what you just did?

Bobbyaf:
Now how does the sabbath come into the picture of all of this? From the very beginning God had sanctified the seventh day after the six days of creation to be a holy day. The word "the" in Genesis 2:3 suggests a specific day, and not just any day. According to the Genesis account God had set apart for holy use the seventh-day sabbath, because that is exactly what the word sanctified means. Now, why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and not include Adam and Eve to be apart of that rest, based on what was later said in Exudus 20:8-11 as to why God set aside the day from the first place

In very simple terms, Scripture declares what God did on the seventh day - "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it HE had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. 2:3). That should not be made to read that God expressly gave Adam and Eve a divine commandment of the Sabbath Law. I have not come across any Scripture that says God gave the Ten Commandments to Adam and Eve - and I've also repeatedly asked you to clearly proffer such a verse in Genesis. You have none for it in Genesis. Rather, God gave them only one commandment, and that was the only one they disobeyed - that of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).

When they sinned, neither Adam nor his wife Eve were once accused of being thieves or having stolen anything. While Eve was said to have transgressed; it is reported that Adam was NOT deceived (1 Tim. 2:14). Nowhere did God accuse them of having broken the Ten Commandments; so it is unreasonable to read one's biases into the express declarations of Scripture.

In Deuteronomy 5 when Moses reiterated the Ten Commandments, he specifically mentioned that the Law was given to Israel and to none else: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (vs. 2-3).

Again, the fact that the Sabbath Law was not given to other nations is emphasized in Deut. 4:6-8 -- "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"

When Moses in Exo. 20:8-11 gave the Sabbath Law to Israel, he explained its basis as pointing to God's sanctifying that Day after He had created the world. Not once did Moses hint that the Ten Commandments were given previously to anyone; nor did Moses explain any of the other 9 commandments on God's creative activity.

After the Ten Commandments were given, they were also explained in detail as to their stipulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is where the question of stipulations come into the pciture. And when you outline every precept of the Law or Ten Commandments, you will begin to see how utterly impossible it is for anyone to be justified by the Law - whether in the past, present or future (Rom. 3:28 & Gal. 2:16).

@Jen33,

I always suspected you were seeking attention, so no worries. You ought to have taken a hint long ago to address Jim Walker's rantings for yourself before swallowing his drivel hook-line-and-sinker. These issues are the same tired old stories couched up in very immature questions, and one could hardly be surprised that you've only woken up to it.

Let's begin with a silly cavil as in the second youtube link you provided. If anyone was to take you seriously, how come your party conveniently missed out the answer to his question right there in the same Bible where the question was derived? See again:

Question:

Suddenly, John the Baptist is "put in prison". There is no further explanation in the Bible, which seems quite strange if John were a real person. We want to know why he was put in prison.

Answer:
First, whoever was making such remarks/asking such questions was simply being disingenuous. Indeed the Bible gave an explanation as to why John the Baptist was put in prison - which must have been deliberately ignored if one reads the full text in Matt. 14:3-12 >>

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus.

When people can afford to be that silly and anyone takes them seriously, they only show the size of their intellect.

Again,

Jen33:
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a ''James'' as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which one? Or maybe this ''James'' has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer comes from any one of innumerable ''James'' outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]

It is really laughable how this chap dribbles himself into these inferences. In stating that the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once exposes Jim Walker's cavil. On the contrary, James mentions Jesus twice!

James 1:1 - James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James 2:1 - My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Secondly, Walker doesn't know the meaning of an "epistle" and hopes that it would automatically mean that an epistle ought to be a biography or a history textbook before he could accept it as a historical document. This sloppy knavery is not worth anyone's waste of time.

If that's all the noise you can make, no worries. I'm hardly surprised by the same old story.

Not surprised. It's the Jim Walker lullaby again - classic story teller for those who can't be bothered seeing through has cavil. Actually, I've read his noise before - nothing new here.

@goodguy,

goodguy:
@Bari_kade: My analogy may be flawed, but not deeply.

Actually, the type of membership I am trying to depict here with my analogy is the type that one just finds himself to be a part of. Now, I am referring to this World. We did not choose to become members of this world.

Actually, the analogy is still quite flawed - and that deeply, too. As long as the discussion is centered on religion, one cannot speak of being a 'member' of this world as a free-lance traveller. Membership in terms of religious affiliations immediately crosses out your analogy.

goodguy:
Different people are born in different places with different cultures, beliefs and religion. Every religion believes theirs is the only way. While I am not disputing the claims of Jesus Christ, I will like to know what really He meant in John 14:6. I just have this feeling that the way we have always interpreted the verse is not the way it should be.

One would have hoped that since you called the shots on that verse, then perhaps you would have provided its meaning in other ways than as is clearly stated.

goodguy:
Also, going by the undisputed arguments presented by 4 Play, it will be irrational to think that unless one is a Christian, such person cannot enter heaven. I gave an instance on the other thread, of a person born in Saudi Arabia where Islam is the predominant religion. Such person never goes beyond the shores of Saudi Arabia during his life time, and eventually dies as an ardent God-believing Muslim. Pray tell, will such person be condemned to hell for not being a Christian?

The problem here is that so many of you chaps are trying to play 'god'. Whatever I offer here from the Bible may be outrightly rejected one and all - then what? Why would one bother to even state the obvious?

However, I'd oblige you some answers. God has dealt with man according to dispensations. To those who never heard of Jesus Christ before they passed on, the Bible says they're without excuse, because 'what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them' (Rom. 1:19). This is sometimes called the operation of the conscience, as ch. 2:15 makes clear that a man knows right from wrong deep in his conscience.

How is God going to judge those people? They will be judged according to their deeds - good or bad. Read Romans 2:7-11, which among other things listed that, "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. . ."

As the passage makes clear, I believe it provides answers to the query about the fate of those who never heard the Gospel before passing on. Such men will be judged and acquited based on their deeds - whether good or bad, and based on their consciences.

However, since the commencement of the present dispensation, God is seeking to reconcile the world back to Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ. When someone hears the Gospel clearly preached to him, and he rejects it, the Bible removes all doubts as to the fate of such. This is quite a different thing from having never heard about Jesus Christ - and it simply spells "unbelief".

I'm still studying my Bible, but so far I haven't come across a single text that seems to assume that a person is an "unbeliever" out of having never heard anything about God or Christ. An un[/b]believer in Scripture is one who [b]rejects the message preached to him/her. There are several texts clearly highlighting the fate of the 'unbeliever' in Scripture, but two will suffice for now ~~

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" - John 3:36.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" - Mark 16:16. 

I'm not a syncretist trying to look for a middle course somewhere in Christ's words. He by Himself stated clearly what an unbeliever assumes for him-/herself in not believing His words. Like I said, this may outrightly rejected one and all; but it doesn't really change what He said.

@lysaa,

lysaa:
In the days of John the baptist, Jesus never pointed accusing finger at John even tho he had some "reasons" to do so, neither did John at Jesus ( remember he spoke of him but at a time had doubt too).

We hear you. Please could you enunciate on what you mean by Jesus had some "reasons" to point accusing fingers at John the baptist? At least we know that neither Jesus nor John the baptist had a N49 million controversy between them.

I don't think the core of the issue is that anyone is outrightly denouncing pastor Oyaks in his ministry. But what are we to do with such issues that have been mystified and got everyone raising eye-brows? Should we just pass glibly over them and pretend nothing happened?

@Bobbyaf,

I can thank God for answering my prayers to soften your heart - and mine. The thrust of my argument all along was to distinguish between the Laws/Commandments of the Old Covenant and the New. No one can mix them up after a prayerful study from God's Word.

Many blessings to you.

@Zahymaka,

Indeed everyone is entitled to their opinion, even though they're not liked for just holding those opinions. The problem with your post is that you sound like someone living in a remote part of the world.

Zahymaka:
My parents are exceptionally liberal. They only insist that I acknowledge the presence of a higher power. I've been encouraged to delve into the literature of other religions and to analyze the good and the bad, which is why I wasn't surprised at the Da Vinci Code, no matter the outcry.

Would you be surprised if you knew what Muslims did to Ali Dashti for simply researching Muhammad's life and career? Broaden your scope and ask yourself what form of "outcry" comes from Muslims on just about any criticism of Islam.

Zahymaka:
I had a lot of muslim friends in Nigeria - my best friend was one. His parents were very enlightened and his mother treated me like her son the one time I went there, which isn't something you'll say of most Christians.

That is because you haven't met "most Christians". I spent my very first month in the USA in the home of Christian "strangers" who knew nothing about me. They dared to take me into their home inspite of the fact that they knew I was a Nigerian and we had received bad press of late with the popular 419 scams which many people now think originated with us. When I finally got myself sorted, they didn't ask one dime back from what they spent on me; not to mention how many times they have visited me in schoolas if they were my parents.

Zahymaka:
Nigerians, especially the Christian are too agressive in their evangelism. I might be sounding like I love muslims and hate Christians but I hardly meet Christians who believe in living and letting live. You can go to the North and see wherec hristians set up 'shop' in a predominantly muslim area and fix 'foghorns' to the outside of their shacks, disturbing the neighborhood.

And Muslims were very genteel in the North during the riots following cartoons of Muhammad that had nothing to do with Nigeria, abi? Please, let's just be practical and stop pandering these misconceptions.

Zahymaka:
Down South, it's almost a crime to be a muslim in any school. I could go on. . .

Honestly ask yourself why this state of affairs now exist in the South (and how real this complaint of yours is), following what Muslim Northerners have done in recent past.

@Seun,

Seun:
Here's the good news: the religions are all wrong, so there is no God, and there is no hell. No cause for alarm.

Just simply tell us you're bored and kidding. How you establish your simplistic conclusion is comical at best.

@bindex,

bindex:
personally i believe the all these religions are all false because it doesnt make any sense for just a few moslems or christians to end up inheavenwhile all the others end up in hell when there are billions that have never had about both religions.

Broadly speaking, that includes whatever sort of religious affiliations you belong. What may not make sense in a religion you don't understand or haven't heard of, does not automatically make them all false until you have actually studied each and every one of them.


@goodguy,

goodguy:
I am a new member on Nairaland.  I break a rule that I never even knew existed, and Seun still goes ahead to ban me knowing fully well that I was not aware of that rule.  In all honesty, tell me what you would think of Seun in that regard.  And don't give me the "Ignorance is not an excuse" crap.  That's one very big Bullshit that I will totally annul if I were in the position to do so.  To me, the human law is indeed an ass.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. The first question would be: how does one become a member of any group/body, association or whatever? You cannot speak of becoming a "member" until YOU make a conscious effort and choice to become one. There are "rules" of signing on to becoming a member of Nairaland; and you can't get past the registration to then speak of membership.

Now, if after becoming a member of this Forum you then break a rule you were not aware of (e.g., "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS"; the administrator applies an appropriate measure that is only binding on members! Let me recall the first line of the rules of engagement for members only -

24 HOUR BANNING, PROBATION, ETC
Our basic punishments for members of the forum who violate these rules and/or are uncooperative include 24 hour banning, indefinite probation, 1 week banning, 2 week banning, 1 month banning, complete banning, public humiliation, and anything thing else that the dark mind of the site administrator can think of!  So it's better to leave the forum quietly than to break the rules.  Punishment is rare but is done with absolute resolution.

I'm sure you now catch the drift. I don't think the admin himself, when applying the measures against violation of rules, sets immediately to completely banning and publicly humiliating poor goodguy! You will receive a warning to be made aware of your action; and should you continue to violate the very rule you're warned against, then measures will be served you accordingly.

Now, let us suppose that after a long period of probation, you write off the admin's cautions as "one very big Bullshit" with a last line that it "is indeed an ass," I cannot guarantee what will be coming your way next - and you had better not mess with "the dark mind" of the site administrator!

There's certainly more to your analogy that could be shown for its weakness, goodguy. The point is that it fails right from its onset to clearly understand issues - especially what being a "member" entails.

All the same, like I said: the story was 'interesting.' However, I would like belloti to provide us with some reference as to his inference that -

belloti:
. . . Allah (swt) gives us 1440 minutes each day and only specifies 17 minutes of that back in prayer.

@blabs787,

babs787:
Comprehension is really your problem.

As long as you keep disgracing your alma-mater (if you have any at all), we won't be surprised that you can't even understand your self.

babs787:
in my post, i said why was his book not taken serious because of the way he was addressed

How many times were you told that even Muslims who study the GoB don't even take it seriously, not to even mention the fact that it contradicts both the Qur'an and the Bible.

babs787:
and when i asked if my write up was making sense, lafile told me 'no'

That should be one more confirmation that you're a confused ADHD.

babs787:
and i moved ahead not referring or laying emphasis on the book of Barnabas. na wa o elder barikade.

Another one of your 787 lies. Tell us again if you have jiga in your eyes and can't see that after lafile's one-word response, you still came back with the same repetition on babyosisi. Check above - and come back lying/blabbing that you never "referred" to the GoB.

babs787:
The curse is really working

I know, blabs, I know - it is "really working" - on you! I'm so sorry that your curses are non-transferrable (though you wish so much they would); and even on weekends they're still working overtime on your mental state. E pe le.

@Amby,

Amby:
When talking about issues relating to God, it's wise to study the scripture and ask God to send the Holy spirit to guide us to understanding the divine message.

You know, it seems these days that even when people have no defence of their beliefs in Scripture, they're the ones who often repeat this phrase of asking God to "send the Holy Spirit to guide us to understanding the divine message". There's a simple way to understand how God guides people into understanding the Word of God - He will show only what is in the Scripture, and not what is outside Scripture.

We all agree Scripture teaches that Jesus (the Logos) is God - John 1:1.

Now let me ask you a few questions.

1. Since Jesus is God, did He die as 'GOD' on the Cross between two thieves?

2. Since Jesus is God, did He become hungry as 'GOD' in Mark 11:12?

3. Since Jesus is God, did He weep as 'GOD' in John 11:35?

What you are failing to understand here is that Mary did not conceive "GOD" in her womb - rather, she conceived Jesus as Man and gave birth to the incarnate Son of God. The Bible states several times that Jesus came "in flesh" (I John 4:2).

When you focus all your thoughts only on the deity of Christ and forget His humanity in the equation, you will continue to miss the fundamental reason why the Holy Spirit never called Mary the "mother of God" in one line of Scripture.

Cheers.

@Amby,

I think you really are losing the gist of your enquiry.

1. Nowhere does Scripture use the term "Mother of God" for anyone - not even Mary. If you have a text for that, please provide one and it will suffice.

2. That Elizabeth called Mary "the mother of my Lord" does not translate into "Mary mother of God."

3. The Logic of using an unscriptural term for Mary does not hold unless the person using the term wants to force his/her ideas into the Word of God.

4. To force that idea into the Word of God, then you would have to apply it in every instance where Jesus is spoken of in the Scripture - that's why I offered Mark 3:33, which so far you have been shying away from and offering what it does not say.

5. If one prays for revelation and understanding of the Word of God, one should be willing to receive what is clearly stated and not substitute his own words and thoughts into Scripture.

Amby:
If you know that Jesus Christ is God as you stated above, and you know that Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus; what then is your confusion about Mary being the mother of God?

Now, may I ask again: without reading your own thoughts into Scripture, where do you read that Mary is clearly called "the Mother of God"? Besides, after Mary gave birth to Jesus, she did not continue to be a virgin.

A text to clearly show that Mary is called Mother of God will be sufficient. But even if you would use some logic and deduce some verses about the issue, then please be prepared for an indepth analysis of your verses.

Cheers.

@Amby,

Amby:
The problem here is that you are not yet seeing Jesus Christ as God, the son.

Be assured - I know that Jesus Christ is God according to John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6. Previously, I have posted entries to confirm my belief in the deity of Jesus Christ: "Jesus Christ said He is the Son of God, and that is the basis of our salvation." Find it here in this link. So, I don't think you read me correctly to have made that inference.

Amby:
I asked you to simply differentiate Lord and God and give a definite clear meaning but you are yet to come forward with that.

The fact that Jesus Christ is called 'Lord' does not mean that there are two 'lords' or two 'Gods' wherever the terms appear in the NT. One is safer to read the Bible precisely with the words penned, and not suppose haphazard meanings into "lord" and "God". For instance, when the Bible says in Acts 2:36 that 'God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ', I'm sure you cannot change that to mean 'God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both God and Christ.' The latter would simply mean that God made Jesus both God and Christ - a heresy nowhere taught in the Bible, because "God" cannot be made!

In the same way, the precise words used in Luke 1:43 is "mother of my Lord", because the Holy Spirit never intended it to be read as "Mother of God". The difference this makes is huge, because to suppose that Mary is the 'mother of God' is to fall into the heresy that Mary gave birth to God! Rather, other verses emphasize that Mary's conception of Jesus focuses on His Humanity; and that is the difference. See Gal. 4:4 as an example.

Amby:
Consider John 15:15 in answering about Jesus brothers and sisters.

In the Scripture you quoted (John 15:15), Jesus was making a distinction between 'servants' and 'friends' (no mention there of 'brothers' and 'sisters') ~~ "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

Amby:
In Mark 3:32-33 as you quoted above you fail to put into consideration the Jewish traditions in regards to relatives, the use of imagery, parables and traditions of the time in Jesus Christ teachings and as well His sole role to save sinners (It's only the sick that have need for a physician). Jesus in the above gospel passage remarked of His sole mission on earth that of saving sinners and making them His brothers and sisters and mothers.

There are 3 things in that response of yours ~~

1. when you stated "His sole role to save sinners", you have contradicted yourself because earlier you hinted that Mary had a "role" in our salvation as well. The Scriptures teach only one Saviour as well that He is the sole Mediator between God and men.

2. as long as the term "Mother of God" does not appear in the Bible and never used of Mary, I offered Mark 3:33 to query why people who use such term are withdrawn from following their logic full circle to confess themselves as "brother/sister of GOD." Jesus said anyone who did God's will is to be recognized as His (Jesus') brother and sister and mother. Now my question is, why not apply the same logic used in Mary's case for disciples and call them 'brother/sister of GOD'? The simple answer is that such ideas are not taught in God's Word - and Mary is never called "Mother of GOD."

3. the passage in Mark 3:33 was not about salvation in the allegory of the physician which you rather find in Mark 2:17. Please don't confuse the two.

Amby:
The same story goes at the passover feast in Jerusalem, when after three days of journey Mary and Joseph realised that Jesus was not in the caravan and went back to look for Him. On getting to the temple they found Him teaching the elders and teachers of the law. What was His response? "Why did you have to look for me? Didn't you know I had to be in my father's house?" (Luke 2:49) But He went back with them to Nazareth.

How does this make Mary the "Mother of GOD"?

Amby:
In studying the scripture we need the guide of the Holy Spirit so that like the Ethiopian eunuch we will be guided aright (Acts 8:26-35).
Regards.

At least you know that the Euthopian eunuch did not make inferences by misreading the Word. We are safer in reading the Bible as precisely as it is given; and not as we want it to read with our own words and ideas.

Enjoy.

@4get_me,

The one thing that gladdens me is that my inputs make some sense to some of you. I have chosen to lay out my arguments point-by-point with relevant Scriptures, while comparing other verses to each point.

The bottomline is that no careful reader of the Bible will miss the point that the Christian position is not predicated upon the Sinaitic Law/Commandment/Covenant given specifically to Israel and ratified by the blood of calves and goats.

As you very well know, the Christian position is an exceedingly far more glorious calling than the Old Covenant. This is the core of my argument on this subject, and in due cause we shall come to that point.

God be praised for the benefits anyone receives here, and blessings to all.

@batu,

batu:
I think no serious minded person should take this guy blabs787 seriously. Somebody correctly perceived some evidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in him.

True talk.

batu:
He was laid in a tomb but was not buried. Are you really alright?

High fever, perhaps - from his non-transferrable 787 curses upon himself?

@naijacutee,

naijacutee:
While you're answering that, here's a treat for you. This has nothing to do with Christianity, it was written by Muslims. Enjoy.

http://www.muslimhope.com/ForgeryOfTheGospelOfBarnabas.htm

Thanks for that link.

Now we come to a very important question on the subject:

                      To WHOM Specifically Did God Give The Sabbath As A Law?

Let us also remember to whom specifically God gave the Sabbath as a Law/Commandment. He did not broadly give it to all the nations regardless of their background. Rather, it was specifically to Israel that He establish the Sabbath as a Law and Commandment. We read in Exodus 31:17 ~~ "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

As already discussed, the Old Covenant was ratified by blood; and without this important ratification, the Covenant would not have been in force: Exodus 24:8 - "⁸And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words"; Heb. 9:17-18 ~~ ¹⁷For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. ¹⁸Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood."

This is why it is of utmost importance to understand to whom the Law applied. God never meant for the Sinaitic Law to be quoted against Adam or any of the Gentile nations who were not under never given the Law in the first place. Again and again, Scripture bears testimony to this fact --

(1). Rom. 2:17; 3:1-2 - "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God. . . What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

No other nation was given such a Law as is being discussed here, including the sabbath-law. Moses clearly enunciated this fact in stating: "Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deut. 4:6-.

Those who often make reference to "the Law" or  the "Commandments/Covenant" by quoting Exodus will do well to remember that such were enactedand ratified specifically for Israel.


(2). Another confirmation of the point is found in Deuteronomy 5:1-22. Now please carefully see that the same Sinatic Law in Exodus 20 is here given in Deuteronomy; however, we observe in the first few verses to whom these were made -

¹And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
²The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
³The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
⁴The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
⁵(I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying,
⁶I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
⁷Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
⁸Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
⁹Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
¹⁰And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
¹¹Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
¹²Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
¹³Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
¹⁴But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
¹⁵And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
¹⁶Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
¹⁷Thou shalt not kill.
¹⁸Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
¹⁹Neither shalt thou steal.
²⁰Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
²¹Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.
²²These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Once we can see to whom the Law was specifically given (and clearly it is to Israel), then it becomes easier to understand that the Christian position is not to be predicated on the Law of Exodus that rested on the Sinatic Covenant.

Having established to whom specifically the Law was given and ratified, we shall be looking at the different types of sabbaths, and then see what they mean in the New Testament.

gospelman:
Have you not heard of men of God who were prompted by the Holy Sprirt and the slapped,punched and /or ripped huge growhts out of the sufferers' bodies?

Please share more on that - you've caught my curiosity now.

gospelman:
If he pushes you,then fall and get what you want.Complaining about his methods even makes your matter worse.

!!!

@Analytical,

Take all the time you need o jare. I'm all on your side, and we go win by force!

@TV01,
I have decided to relax the redcard for 3 yellow ones. Next time I won't be that lenient!

Meanwhile, I'm shopping around for some sports shorts and vests - looks like the umpire will be playing this unique tennis afterall! And I'll still hold ace!

@belloti,

belloti:
The irony is, is that this story has once been directly relevant to each and every single one of us(Muslims). It is quite remarkable that Allah (swt) gives us 1440 minutes each day and only specifies 17 minutes of that back in prayer. But due to the ignorance of people and the whisperings of Shaitaan the accursed, we are blinded towards the minute scale of what we are giving back.

Interesting story. However, could you provide reference for how you came about only 17 minutes alloted Muslims to pray each day? Thanks.

@blabs787,

babs787:
@babyosisi,
so babyosis  finally answered the above? so you are that blind to the extent of seeing that she only replied 2-4

Ode. If she replied 2-4, what did I do? Abi you're borrowing sight from bats that you can't see I answered #1? Is that not 1-4 in all?

babs787:
Quote from: babyosisi on Today at 03:47:55 PM
so jesus in the bible will beat those that didnt do his wish. please i want to know, how many strokes? iwo boy yi, i only pity your soul against the blasphemous statement you have been uttering and am also praying for you that Allah touches your heat before the day when none of your fellow christians will be able to intercede for you.

This is what you refer to as a blasphemy ~~ "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). That statement was made by the Lord Jesus, and I know that anything Christ spoke about, is regarded as a blasphemy in Islam.

babs787:
well, i never made any reference to any other christians except you and gbade that are very found of posting the statement and it will continue hanging on you

Okay, you forgot that when you tried your curses on shahan, they bounced off and returned to you? No wahahla, I have offered you Prov. 26:2 again to show that your curses are all yours and non-transferrable.

babs787:
see who has a very sharp vision but couldnt detect whether her sister babyosis answered no 1 question or not.

When dirty comot for your cursed eyes, you go see road. Read on.

babs787:
barikade has really answered babs this time. look at his post up. he saw my glaring question yet he is still asking if it was on 'WHERE", NA WA O. so you are not satisfied with that of the man, ok i remove that. so do justice to the remaining three, a,b and c.
my question is still on WHERE.

Did I not provide you an answer of "WHERE" in #1 - precisely as you stated it? Reminder -

bari_kade:
Were you concerned about WHERE the denials took place, or before WHOM they were made? Your answer in c above simple states "was to a man" - and that doesn't indicate a "WHERE" question. English is obviously failing you, babs78

Seems like you need to sort yourself out of your tangled lingo, then get back to us after the polish.

babs787:

bari_kade link=topic=29381.msg876302#msg876302 date=1171033645:
The first denial - WHERE:
Peter was in the precincts of the Palace:
"Now Peter sat without in the palace" (Matt. 26:69)
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace" (Mark 14:66)
". . in the midst of the hall, . . .Peter sat down among them." (Luke 22:55).

liar. you can see that the curse is really working. this is what we have
Mark 14v69: below in the courtyard
mathew 26v71: and he went out into the porch

You score such illiterate interjections because you can't read or understand anything in front of your eyes. Mark 14:69 does not have "below in the courtyard" as you quoted; so who is working overtime with your cheap lies? It won't take you long before you get to your 787th lie!

If you are not satisfied, let me quote the whole texts of Peter's 3 denials and also help to neatly delineate them ordinally into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sequence of events:

                                        MATTHEW'S GOSPEL

1ST DENIAL - MATT. 26:69-70
⁶⁹Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. ⁷⁰But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2ND DENIAL - MATT. 26:71-72
⁷¹And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. ⁷²And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       3RD DENIAL - MATT. 26:73-75
⁷³And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. ⁷⁴Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. ⁷⁵And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

MARK'S GOSPEL

1ST DENIAL - MARK 14:66-68
⁶⁶And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: ⁶⁷And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. ⁶⁸But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2ND DENIAL - MARK 14:69-70a
⁶⁹And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. ⁷⁰And he denied it again. . .
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       3RD DENIAL -MARK 14:70b-72
. . .⁷⁰And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. ⁷¹But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. ⁷²And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

LUKE'S GOSPEL

1ST DENIAL - LUKE 22:54-57
⁵⁴Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off. ⁵⁵And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. ⁵⁶But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. ⁵⁷And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2ND DENIAL - LUKE 22:58
⁵⁸And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       3RD DENIAL - LUKE 22:59-62
⁵⁹And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. ⁶⁰And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. ⁶¹And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. ⁶²And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Now mr. self-accursed blabs787, are you any wiser or you have decided to let your 787 lies run you aground?

@babs787,

babs787:
barikade,
can you please read the thread and see for yourself that no emphasis was laid on gospel of barnabas, i thought you are knowledgeable but couldnt understand simple sentences.na wa o, keep cursing yourself.

I am still laughing at your drivel - it's Friday and a good way to start the weekend. Nowhere did I curse myself, and I offered you Proverbs 26:2 to show that your curses upon yourself are non-transferrable. Again, I say - I just dey kampe!

Now, your latest concern about the GoB seems to have cooled off, abi? If not, make some more noise. How many times did you harp on it, claiming that you were only asking babyosisi a question about it? You forgot? Here, let me help you ~~

babs787:
now, to the issue of gospel of barnabas, if not that you are really blind, did i ask questions on the gospel? i only brought out the gospel as a result of the respect accorded to Barnabas in your bible and wondered why should the man of that high status be ignored, i also asked babyosis why it was not included but because of your pea sized brain, you misconstrued me.

Oga blabs787, what is the meaning of " I wondered why. . . I also asked babyosisi why it was not included"? They're your newest blabbers, abi? If they were not "questions" and you didn't need any answers, would you not have come back screaming your lullaby of "IGNORING" your questions? O ka re, local champ.

I've told you before, the worst you can do if you don't like the answers given to your questions is simply state that you disagree with them; not lying that they were "IGNORED"! Simple English does not mean the same thing as your noise.

@Amby,

Amby:
This brings us to the fundamental issue of belief in the Father, son and the Holy Spirit.
Can you differentiate between Lord and God, when Jesus remarked "I and my father are one" Think about God , the Father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Spirit. The mystery of God's presence. Think about the mystery of life/creation, conception by the power of the Holy Spirit, resurrection of Jesus Christ, descent of the Holy Spirit.

I don't see how this establishes Mary as the Mother of "God".

Amby:
Refer back to my earlier post of three historical ways God has appeared to us to unite us back to Himself; viz: as The Father (Talking direct from heaven in form of cloud, fire, thunder), as The Son (Jesus Christ), as The Holy Spirit. Understand what these three persons mean to be one, though it's beyond human understanding and comprehension. It's a mystery. That's why we need faith to see God. Pray and ask for revelation of the truth, God definitely will lead you through.

This again does not make Mary "the Mother of God".

Amby:
Ask to know more about Virgin Mary. All you said about one confessing Jesus Christ, believing solely and having faith in Him for our salvation is sure and true but we need grace to do all that. No Holy life without grace. Paul never knew he will encounter Christ but grace made it possible. At a point in his life when he felt he was getting weak, he was reminded of God's sufficient grace on him.

Is there any scripture that says Paul prayed to Mary for salvation or for grace, or yet to intercede for him? I haven't seen one yet.

Amby:
No man gets down the road of holiness on his own power; it's by grace.
Seek for God's grace and that woman (Virgin Mary) is full of grace.

Nowhere in the Bible are Christians asked to seek God's grace through Mary. If there's one such verse, can we read of it here on the Forum

Amby:
Meditate and think God will lead you to the truth.
Regards.

I'm still a student of God's Word, and I will not be haughty as not to learn what He desires me to know. I simply request one thing: can we have the Biblical texts where Mary is called "Mother of God"?

I wonder why people who see Mary as "the Mother of God" usually fail to apply the same logic to Mark 3:32-33 and call themselves "Sister of God" and "Brother of God". Just try applying your logic to those verses and in all honesty ask yourself if you can call yourself by that title.

Regards.

@belloti,

belloti:
Just sort yourselves out. Where is Baby, the learned girl?

Nothing to "sort out" - the debate is still on to help you guys sort out the many questions of the Hadith and the Qur'an; and it seems nuru and blabs787 could do with a rescue mission from you, if you have anything to offer.

@blabs787,

babs787:
@barikade

let me quickly answer you befoe i go on with my write up. like i have been saying and will continue, the curse will continue hanging on you till you answer those four questions.

You make for a good sport of laughter. No matter how you try to transfer your delusions and curses to anyone, they are not working. Proverbs 26:2 - "As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come." I just dey kampe and you will continue to sweat out all curses (787 of them) on yourself! Ride on.

babs787:
really, so babs started the insults, have you read the number of times, havila, mrpataki, davidylan, babyosis, shahan and lately you and gbade have been saying all sorts of bullshits. when i first came on board, i thought this is going to be a thread where religious will be thrashed out, i.e disagree in order to agree but i found out that reverse was the case. i even remembered when mrpataki accused me of insulting havila and tendered my apology but along the line in other threads, i learnt that most of you are fond of foul languages and to talking to people anyhow as if they are your kids, so babs made up his mind that, the measure you mete out will meted to you too.

How did I start out to engage you in discussions - with insults? How did I start out to engage other discussants like nuru - with insults? I often start out asking questions - is that the same as insults? That is why your hypocrisy is not worth the dust on the highway to Medina.

I went on to offer you a reasoned appeal in this link, where among other things, that you should face issues and desist from the usual cliche that your questions were "IGNORED". Since you're quite a stranger to manners, then let's see just how much your non-transferrable curses are eroding your civility.

babs787:
now, to the issue of gospel of barnabas, if not that you are really blind, did i ask questions on the gospel? i only brought out the gospel as a result of the respect accorded to Barnabas in your bible and wondered why should the man of that high status be ignored, i also asked babyosis why it was not included but because of your pea sized brain, you misconstrued me.

Let me help you with your jiga. You could have helped your case if you only wondered for a moment why other scholarly Muslims do not take the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB) seriously.

"The Gospel of Barnabas is a work purporting to be a depiction of the life of Jesus by his disciple Barnabas. The two earliest known manuscripts have been dated to the late sixteenth century, and are written respectively in Italian and in Spanish; although the Spanish version survives now only in an eighteenth century copy. . . In some, but not all, respects it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins; and consequently its authorship and textual history remain the subject of continued controversy."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

How you expect to pepper your cacophony with a controversial "pseudepigrapha" is beyond anyone's imagination, not to even mention that of the Muslims who don't take it serously. There are a few issues to help you think through why the GoB is a weak instrument for your argument:

(a) the document is only of recent date - late sixteenth century.

(b) the manuscripts that have survived are in Italian and Spanish - hardly the languages of the disciples in the first century.

(c) in some respects, the GoB conforms to Islamic interpretations of Christianity - which is hardly surprising from its 16th century date than any 1st century Christian document written by the true disciples of Jesus.

babs787:
so, having answered you, let me go on with the continuaton.

I'm not the one screaming about 'they "IGNORED" my questions' - and you can sort yourself out of your misconceptions about your GoB.

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
a. was to a maid in the gateway (mark 14v69)
b. was to another maid in the porch (mathew 26v71)
c. was to a man (luke 22v58)

Are you asking these questions because you are interested in finding out how to be saved and these are your stumbling blocks or you just want to keep being a pest.

Anyone can see his curses are working overtime on him and he's been foaming out his hoo-ha as a consequence. Watch - he will come back screaming that we ignored his questions after I set him an occasion to prove it. You will soon read his usual - "IGNORED my questions!"

babyosisi:
Does it take away from the sinless example of the Jesus Christ the Lord?

Does it diminish his status as the soon coming king and messiah of the world?

Or change that fact that no one else can save your soul but Jesus?

No. The only agenda on blabber787's mind is to pander about his repeated so-called "IGNORED my questions" in hope you washing Muhammad's sins. It's not working - he knows that himself; and he's having sleepless nighst wondering if the latest tricks will help him.

babyosisi:
The Bible says that now that you know the truth and refuse to follow it,you shall be beaten with many stripes,that is a proverb.
Shahan,4malik and many others here were once like you,you are not beyond redemption.

I pray he doesn't have to wait for the koboko of heaven in order to see Muhammad's disingenuous claims of prophethood.

@babs787,

babs787:
@barikade

let me start with you. you have decided to follow the steps of your brethren

That's true - I have decided to heed the advise of others and not waste my precious time on a cacophony of cymbals who can't read simple statements in English. Thereare just tow reasons why I lose nothing by allowing you wallow in your ignorance - (a) I've dealt with your type before: nothing ever straightens those who self-accursed; (b) it really never pays to keep feeding the lies of blabbermouths like you - and your username is a testimony to the fact that you won't stop until you get to your 787[/b]th lie.

babs787:
like i said, the curse will continue hanging on you till my questions are answered.

We already know your curses are working overtime on [b]you, blabs787 - that is why you keep screaming that people are "ignoring" your questions. It is pretty obvious that you're a total stranger to truth, and that is why you keep trumping up your 787 lies. Well done.

babs787:
you posted some links claiming that shahan had answered me, why not do same if you had and if you can't, the questions are still here for you. the curse will continue hanging on you as long as you keep running from the questions

When you are cured of your curses, let us know. I guessed you can't read, and that's why your blood pressure took an astronomical shoot to come out with hoo-ha claiming your questions were "IGNORED".

babs787:
1. where did the second denial take lace?
a. was to a maid in the gateway (mark 14v69)
b. was to another maid in the porch (mathew 26v71)
c. was to a man (luke 22v58)

2. who carry the cross to the golgotta
a. simon of cyrene carried it (mathew 27v32, luke 23v26)
b. jesus carried the cross by himself (john 19v17)

3. how many thief reviled jesus?
a. both the two thieves (mathew 27vv44)
b. one out of the two thieves (luke23v49-50)

4. when was the curtain turned?
a. after the cry (mark 15v34-38, mathew 27v46-52)
b. one time (luke 23v45-46)

When you are cured of your Islamic hoo-ha and stop lying with claims of "my questions are IGNORED", I'll oblige you answers to the above. Let's start with one to see if your curses are still giving you high fever -

babs787:
1. where did the second denial take lace?
a. was to a maid in the gateway (mark 14v69)
b. was to another maid in the porch (mathew 26v71)
c. was to a man (luke 22v58)

Were you concerned about WHERE the denials took place, or before WHOM they were made? Your answer in c above simple states "was to a man" - and that doesn't indicate a "WHERE" question. English is obviously failing you, babs787.

Anyhow, I'll deal with both sides in my answer.

Please carefully note that the elements in the three Gospel accounts tie together when you read the whole texts and not just isolated verses. These are the elements:

The first denial - WHERE:
Peter was in the precincts of the Palace:
"Now Peter sat without in the palace" (Matt. 26:69)
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace" (Mark 14:66)
". . in the midst of the hall, . . .Peter sat down among them." (Luke 22:55).

The second denial - before WHO:
"And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth" (Matt. 26:71).
"And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them" - (Mark 14:69).
"And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not." (Luke 22:58).

Please notice what happened in the second case. The second damsel/maid saw Peter and began to speak to others about Peter (Mark 14:69). She did not immediately and directly speak to Peter, but rather to "them that stood by" and saying "This is one of them!" - the very same thing confirmed in Matt. 26:71, "them that were there." So, in Luke 22:58, the maid afterwards must have turned to Peter and then pointedly accused him - "Thou art also of them!" Read the context - Peter did not directly answer the maid but rather addressed the man who accused him afterwards - "Man, I am not" (Luke 22:58).

If you compare this second denial with the narrative in John 18:25, you will see the point that Peter rather replied those (the men) who accused him ~~ "And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not." When you bring the whole event together, you find at once that the second denial was not a contradiction.

Now, when you come back screaming your questions were ignored, you'll confirm that your curses are doing overtime on you; and you neither understand English nor have eyes to read. I shouldn't have my hopes high; but if you Muhammad would cure you overnight, then I'll offer you answers to the other three.

babs787:
havila, backslider, davidylan, mrpataki, shahan, babyosis, sokislam, barikade, gbade, lafile etc, don't worry, am still expecting more, 'e ti po to, e lo po si wa',

babs only is enough for you all.

I can't laugh enough at this blabbering loser whose self-congratulations are only a manifestation of how deeply his delusions have eaten into his psyche. Local champion, e pe le!

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
when the now hold crusades,say God bless you and talk of the glory of God and miracles.
Somebody tell me when they start laying on of hands.

Soon, dear babyosisi, . . . soon.

Perhaps, another prophet of Islam will need to persuade them to start using expressions of the Cross. One only needs to read the Hadiths to see how these chaps so disliked any expression of crosses -

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 3: Book 3, Number 0902:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
Sa'id ibn Ziyad ibn Subayh al-Hanafi said: I prayed by the side of Ibn Umar and I put my hands on my waist. When he finished his prayer, He said: This is a cross in prayer; the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to forbid it.

Malik's Muwatta, Book 3: Book 3, Number 3.13.54:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim that Abdullah ibn Umar told him that he used to see Abdullah ibn Umar cross his legs in the sitting position of the prayer.He said, "So I did the same, and I was young at the time. Abdullah ibn Umar forbade me and said, 'The sunna of the prayer is that you keep your right foot vertical and lay your left foot down.' I said to him, 'But you do the same (as I did).' He said, 'My feet do not support me.' "

@Amby,

Amby:
I quite appreciate your contribution to this trend but I will like to refer you to just one scriptural quote "why should this great thing happen to me, that my Lord's mother comes to visit me?" (Luke 1:43). ELizabeth's utterance as was inspired by the holy spirit when Mary visited her.

Indeed, Luke 1:43 records Elizabeth's utterance as calling Mary's "my Lord'[/b]s mother" - which is not to be misconstrued for the same thing as calling Mary the Mother of [b]God! I would really appreciate it if you have a reference as well for the latter, where she was indeed called "Mother of God" - a title which none of the apostles used for her in establishing doctrine for the Church. We find that she is simply called "Mary his mother" (Luke 2:34), or "the mother of Jesus" (John 2:1 & 3), or "Mary the mother of Jesus" (Acts 1:14). Indeed, we ought to ask, "is not his mother called Mary?" (Matt. 13:55) rather than suggest what she is not called.

The fact that Jesus did not once refer to Mary as the "Mother of God" should help us understand that the title was never intended to be used for her. Instead, the Lord Jesus rather gave us something to think about in Mark 3 when He asked, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" (vs. 33). If we are to confess Mary as Mother of "God", then why does the Catholic Church shy away from following the implication of the subsequent verses in Mark 3?

And what about Mary's testimony? She herself said, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:47). Question: would Mary be saying that she gave birth to "God her Saviour"?

Amby:
Understand the role of this woman (Virgin Mary) in our salvation. This role is scripturally exemplified at the first recorded miracle of Jesus; where, at the marriage feast in Cana and by the the humble request of His mother (Mary), He turned water into wine. This generally summarise her role in salvation; pleading and interceding on behalf of God's people, her children. She does this even when we are unawre just as the couple didn't know she understood their need and mediated on their behalf.

Not one to subscribe to notions that cannot be defend from Scripture, I'd rather stick what is taught in God's Word. As far as I know, there is only One mediator between God and men - and that is Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5). Mary is never said to be an intercessor, and she has no prominent place among the apostles and early Christians (Acts 1:14 again - "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren".

Why do you suppose that Jesus did not set His mother as one of the 12 apostles? And why did He not leave a specific instruction for the apostles to seek Him or God through His mother?

The case of John 2 was about a wedding, and not about the quest for salvation.

Amby:
We need to open our spiritual eyes and not rely on our human intelligence in understanding the scripture and God. God is far greater than what we can think.

No matter how much we have our spiritual eyes opened, I hope we will only see what God's Word say, and not what it does not teach.

Regards.