₦airaland Forum

Just a little reference to the point that most Muslims themselves are the ones who acknowledge that they don't worship the same God as do the Christians ~~

mukina2:
we believe in Illa Allah
. . .
the christians have Jehovah

Source: Don't Muslims Worship The Same God As Christians?

belloti:
oh yes Shahan . And i don't think we worship the same God

Source: Don't Muslims Worship The Same God As Christians?

This may just be the case of a few Muslims on the Forum who hinted about the dichotomy that exists between the deities worship in Christianity and Islam. However, I have read some more serious statements to the point that most scholarly Muslims argue they worship a different God from the one Christians worship.

I don search for answers to why all them muslim accusations so teyyyy. . .!! I tire for them, no be small.

Why is it so difficult for Muslims to tell when exactly the Bible was corrupted; by who it was corrupted; what texts were corrupted; and what the un[/b]corrupted versions said?? Just because Muhammad denied the Biblical naratives - his followers go just accept his denials without carefully weighing them in light of historical antecedence.

Many times, when you ask some of these 'aburo', they will quickly tell you that Islam is the most "scientific" religion in the world (nevermind that for all of that their Allah has not healed anyone!). But then, If Islam is scientific at all, why is it that no mullah has been able to tell us how old Aisha was when Muhammad took her to bed?? I don ask so teyyyy. . . and none of them mullahs has a consensus age - she could have been [b]9 y.o. by some "scientific imam"; another says 12 y.o., others put it at 15, or 16, or 18-19 y.o.! Bottomline, them no know - and further questioning is subject to a fatwa!

If you ask them for the ratios and percentages for inheritance in the Qur'an, some mullah with knowledge of Quraish mathematics will try and convince us that 15/12 = 1! And if you're still scratching your head about this, then they will tell you how much they hate "Western" education - because Madonna, 5 Cents and Snoopy Dog are Bible-believing Christians!

Na so. I don't even want to ask about the 'peace' in Islam - that one has been consigned to the problem of "Western" media and the BBC, who are always "attacking" Islam with bad press (even though America's 9/11 and London's 7/7 speak to the point)!

Me, I still dey shop around for one 'sweetheart' - but I don tire for them question about the koboko husbands are to dish out to their wives if they commit 'slight' offence! It is very consoling that one of the imams on the Forum called it a "light tap" (reminds me of lovin-wan-tin-tin of Zebrudaya!).

On the whole, to be "politically correect", I think we should all learn to appreciate the positive things in Muhammad's religion. You may not like it as a Christian (I'm being "politically correct", remember?); but at least see the positive side it brought to men who want some more sex and wine than Christianity allows. Em. . . I'm still trying to remember some other 'positive' things about it; but that will do for now.

If in all these, some of my brethren begin dey ask me wetin be my next move, please don't send me email - I don tire to do Islamic scientific research! I'm still reading posts on the Forum and asking questions. Afterall, we are all here to understand "the religion of peace", abi?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I still contend that God could not have blessed, sanctified, and hallow a day for Himself. He did it for mankind in order that they might remember His act of creation. Hence the seventh-day sabbath is a memorial of God's creation. The scripture is very clear on this as stated in the 4th commandment.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, let me offer you this:

bari_kade:
When you clearly state what basis (Genesis or Exodus) your arguments are put across, then I'll take it up from there.

It seems you're running out of steam and that's why you're now mixing your own quotes between Genesis and Exodus.

Bobbyaf:
That verse carries a reason why God's people should keep the sabbath. It is to be kept as a memorial of creation and the fact that God Himself rested. Now, if in a sinful environment God still desires that His people remember Him as Creator, then why wouldn't God also not desire that His upright humans at the very beginning remember His acts of Creation?

Is it too difficult for you to specify where in Genesis God gave such a law/commandment to Adam? At least, I've offered you texts in Genesis to show what Adam was specifically commanded to do and not do by God; and isn't it obvious that eating or not eating of the tree is not a part of the 10 commandments that you confused?

Bobbyaf:
Not only was the sabbath kept by the patriarchs, despite the OT's silence on such, and which is no reason to believe that the sabbath was kept anyway, but there remains a sabbath day of rest for God's people. Listen to Paul as He speaks:

"There remaineth therefore a rest [margin: 'keeping of a sabbath'] to the people of God," Hebrews 4:9.

I was waiting for you to desperately rush to Hebrews - and let me ask you:
Question #16: what did Paul mean by Hebrews 4:9?

Bobbyaf:
Lets revisit Ex. 16 for a bit.
Exodus 16:4-5, Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily

I contend that God's law was always there. David says His law and statutes are forever. No one can change them. Exudus 16 is one prime exampe of a people who had forgotten His law. God doesn't just up and create laws just to prove a point if there weren't any in the first place, and especialy to a people who had forgotten. For over 400 years they had adopted the ways of the Egyptians, and even complained about desiring to go back on more than one occasions. The manna experience was to be a fore-runner of the time God would once again re-establish what was forgotten by His people in Egypt, hence the mount Sinai renewal of the covenant, the basis of which was the 10 commandments.

In all, there is no indication that Exodus 16 proves they had forgotten "the Sabbath"; much less "the Law" (the Law which was not even in existence in Genesis).

Bobbyaf:
The very fact that an agreement was made and then broken by the chidren of Israel shows how spiritually immature those people were, and how deep they were in the idolatrous ways of the Egyptians.

It's very easy to make accusations like these especially when you ignore what the Scriptures teach. If Israel was steeped in Egyptian idolatory, why then would the Egyptians have persecuted them with such hatred for simply the Jews' faith in the LORD? If the Jews/Hebrews were deep in Egyptian idolatory, to whom were they praying/crying out to that the LORD God heard them? See for yourself ~~

Exo. 2:23-25 & 3:9 - "And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage; And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. . . Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them."

I'd rather you don't let your imaginations fly wildly to make accusations against God's people every which way.

Bobbyaf:
For the very first time God's set of divine precepts would be transferred to two sets of stones, the first four representing love for God and the second six representing love for one another. The best way to instill memory is to have visuals, and that is exactly what they needed considering their level of spirituality.

If the best way to instill memory is to have visuals, how come those "visuals" have been nailed to the cross? "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2:14).

Bobbyaf:
Once again no truthful argument has come forward to explain why God would sanctify, bless, and hallow a day, right after creation and not desiring for the first couple who represented mankind to enjoy such rest with their Creator. Unless ofcourse the words sanctify, bless, and hallow have totally different meanings.

Is this the third or fourth time you have missed it completely in my rejoinder where I treated it?

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade you can quote all you want it doesn't make sense quoting out-of-context passages that have no bearing on whether God made the sabbath for mankind, inclusive of which was Adam, and all the rest of the righteous patriarchs.

Oga Mr. SDA, I have offered texts contextually that you have been unable to refute; and not an answer to my previous 15 questions have you attempted! On the other hand, your postulations have become puffing smoke that have no verses in Genesis to your arguments for Adam!

Bobbyaf:
You're the biggest spider on this forum. , Keep spinning your way straight into oblivion, because sooner or later the truth will stare you in the face and I wonder what you will do when its too late.

Again, this is not new, because I've met many SDA members who will launch into attacks and name-calling where their superstitions have been deflated. If your accusations are worth the dust on Damascus road, please answer my questions; otherwise keep foaming out your empty vexations.

Bobbyaf:
Its a pity that you can't think for yourself rather than having to copy and paste what others have to say on the internet. Its no wonder your dribblings are so long.

I challenge you to bring up one website where I copied and pasted my rejoinders from. Second, my lengthy rejoinders are testimony to the fact that I'm not leaving any line in your 30-year-SDA-confusion unpunctured, not to mention that yours are as long as your accusations!

When you have something worthwhile from carefully studying God's precious Word free from SDA manuals, share it on the Forum - and I'll be willing to oblige you answers to every line of your subsequent misconceptions.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The fact that there was no mention of the sabbath before Exudus 16 doesn't mean that there wasn't one. You're assuming that because scripture is silent on something that it doesn't exist. What if you're wrong?

I'll oblige you this much: I'm not arrogant as not to change my views where solid evidence exist. So far, you failed to provide even one, and I'm still hopeful you'll have a turn around.

Bobbyaf:
Then why would God from creation sanctify the seventh day? You're still going around this fundamental principle. If one sanctifies something don't you expect that one to go into details about the purpose of sanctifying that something? You're harping about a direct law telling Adam to observe the sababth as if that will absolve you from the responsibility of being obedient to God.

If you missed where I treated the seventh day mention in Genesis, please scroll back and read, or better still, ask.

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade no amount of theological expositions can absolve you from seeing the plain trut of scripture. There has to eb a connection between the creation sabbath of which Jesus made reference to in Mrk 2:27 and the very same one mentioned in Exudus 16.

Bobby, please answer simply stated questions. In this connection, I asked you these questions:

#1.

bari_kade:
When you clearly state what basis (Genesis or Exodus) your arguments are put across, then I'll take it up from there.

#2.

bari_kade:
In other words, the same question could be asked this way: What "10 comamndments" are you referring to - the one you cannot provide from Genesis; or the same Law of Moses in Exodus that you initially rejected?

Restating it: what is the basis of your Mark 2:27 argument - Genesis or Exodus?

Bobbyaf:
If you notice how the question was posed by God to Moses. God asked: And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

If at that point of the experience it was the first time that God introduced the sabbath then why ask "how long refuse ye to keep my commandments and laws" This suggests to me in an obvious way that there were previous experiences before which God's people refused to obey.

Dealt with earlier. Read my rejoinders and find the answers as intimated by Neh. 9:14 and Jer. 17:22.

Bobbyaf:
Besides, long before Moses heard anything about God's laws Abraham did. Listen:

Genesis 26:5
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

I hope you understand that Genesis 26:5 cannot be called the Law of Moses which God gave to Israel?

Bobbyaf:
Mark 2:27 clears that up when Jesus said: "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" So if Adam was a man, which you seem to deny, then the sabath was made for him. Simple ABC.

Would you please remove your religious goggles for just a moment and read my rejoinders? Where in one line did I deny that Adam was a man? Your dribbling round this issue because you can't find a Genesis verse for the Law of the Sabbath for Adam is not scoring these cheap accusations.

Bobbyaf:
Typical confuser of the real issues. There is no contradiction in what I said and more so what I meant. You know as well as I do that there was no direct wording or command as such of God instructing Adam re sabbath keeping. We agree on that, but I went on to argue the point of God's sanctifying the day and hence the fact that He did made it highly improbable that He never made Adam and Eve aware of such an act. So when I say God's law existed before it was written what I meant was that God's law in principle existed even before it was written on tables of stones. What is so hard to grasp about that?

Nothing substantial in your entries as long as you again admit your humongous confusion of having no verse in Genesis for such a command or law for Adam. You stated that God's law existed in people's hearts long before it was written on stone; and you haven't been able to stand up to my counter on that.

Bobbyaf:
John says in 1 John 3:4 the following: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

My question to you is. Did Adam and Eve sin? And if they sinned there must have been a set of principles that they transgressed. The same set of principles has come to be known as the 10 commandments.

The desperate twisting of Scripture in your arguments is hillarious. Put it simply - did Adam and Eve transgress the 10 commandments which God never gave them? Did you miss what the Bible specifically spelt out in their case in the same Genesis?

Gen. 2:16-17 ~~ "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Is that part of the 10 commandments? What did God ask Adam following the Fall? See for yourself ~~ "And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Gen. 3:11).

So, Bobbyaf, is eating of the tree a part of "the same set of principles" which have come to be known as the 10 commandments, as you chanted above? I've asked you to calm down and carefully read the Bible contextually; but it seems you only make word searches using concordance so that anywhere you see "law" and "commandment" must be the 10 commandments to you! Read God's Word prayerfully, and God Himself will show you what you're missing.

@nuru,

How is the report by BBC an attack on Islam?

@Grouppoint,

Grouppoint:
Please tell me; If as you say, the spiritual is not governed by natural laws, then why does mankind suffer a spiritual consequence as a result of his natural actions or decision e.g. hellfire.

Having myself thought about that, I now understand that the natural is governed by the spiritual. The reason is that all our actions on the natural plane are either in consonance with, or in dissonance to, the spiritual realm. When spiritual laws are disobeyed or disregarded, consequences thereto manifest in the natural plane. The principle is shown in Gen. 1:15 - "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." Earth was to receive light from the firmament of the heaven, and not the other way round.

Even so, our actions in the natural plane could influence the spiritual realms to effect blessings for our good. That's why we pray and worship.

@babs787,

I'm not surprised your blabbing problem is not solved yet. And what questions did you blab about that have not been dealt with?

@nuru,

I wonder why anyone who reads a simple report would assume that the BBC was attacking Islam. Are you that polarised that you can't read issues as simply as stated?

@belloti,

Please could you enunciate for us what the authentic hadiths are and which ones are not? What denomination of Islam do you belong to among the various sects that exist today?

@belloti,

The BBC report was not a "story telling", but an actual incident. Don't go round it with fancy words.

@belloti,

belloti:
I thought the bible once said "Spare the rod and spoil the child". may be you can twist this also to a more suitable and subtle interpretation as always.

The Bible never said "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Rather, the phrase is reputed to have been first written in a poem by Samuel Butler in 1664, and also appears in a Dickens' novel. It is now being used as a paraphrase of several verses in the book of Proverbs. Sample Prov. 13:24 - "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

There is no twisting on that verse, for it was not meant to be used as 'koboko' to force children to learn the Bible, as is the case with the oustass' cane. The Bible also says in Eph. 6:4 - "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

belloti:
Islam is about relationship with the Lord and i wont be suprised if you never knew.

I'm not aware that Islam is about a relationship with the Lord. Can you expatiate on this borrowed concept that most Muslim apologists disavow?

belloti:
No one seem to be around to reply brother babs. May be we are finally getting a concensus.

The concensus is that he cursed himself, and it is already working on him!
Worry not - blabs787 has already been answered and debunked severally.

belloti:
Another of your fairy tales, David. Your story particularly exposed a peculiar trait in pakistani society but then we are talking about Islam here not the maachhi culture.

Source of the NEWS that turned out to be fact and not fairy tale:  BBC News Report on the Honour Killing.

"Ghulam Nabi Shah, the man that they killed, belongs to a family of Syeds, said to be descendents of Prophet Mohammad and treated with reverence by rural folk."

More on the Honour Killings -

'UK Muslims condemn honour killings'.

Abdullah bin Masud narrated that the messenger of Allah said:
"The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances] : the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community."
   -- Hadith #14 of An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths; related by Bukhari and Muslim

@belloti,
I hope you understand the difference between a fairy tale and a fact?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
God is far wiser than you're able to give Him credit. Long before there was ever a covenant that was administered by Moses, and long before Moses recieved the law of the covenant, God reminded His people to be faithful in observing the seventh-day sabbath. This re-inforces my point that the sabbath was still being observed by God's people, and that God intended for it to have been kept, long before it was written on tables of stones, listen:

Exudus 16:4, Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

I wonder what law God was talking about? I wonder if that law also had anything to do with the sabbath. Lets see.

23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

I'm glad for your sake that you're coming close to the stated precepts instead of just making unsubstantiated implications. However, if you follow closely the background to this incident, you find that this was the first time God specifically made reference the sabbath. The fact that "all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses" what happened on the sixth day (vs. 22) shows that they hitheto were not keeping the Sabbath - not even when they were in Egypt! On that occasion, Moses then said, "This is that which the LORD hath said" (vs. 23) - and please notice the tense of his reply and see that Moses was reminding the elders of what he earlier said to the congregation of Israel in vs. 4-5.

In the history of Israel as a covenant people of the Lord, it is on record that anytime reference was made to the Sabbath as a Law/commandment, it was often in reference to the time God spoke of it to Moses. This is clear in Nehemiah's prayer in Neh. 9:14 -

"And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."

Again, in Jer. 17:22, God Himself hinted that this commandment was given to the patriarchs of Israel:  "Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers."

Now, I wonder why God did not state in the latter that they should hallow the sabbath day as He commanded Adam?? This is why I have asked you many times to please go into Scripture and see WHAT and HOW God said the sabbath was to be observed and kept.

Bobbyaf:
If as you say that the sabbath was introduced under the Old Covenant which never materialised until they got to mount Sinai some time after this part of the wilderness journey, then how come Moses reminded the Hebrews about the sabbath if they weren't keeping it before?

Answers as above. Besides, do you have any references in the entire Bible to show that the Israelites were keeping the Sabbath while in Egypt before they got to the wilderness?

Bobbyaf:
Listen again as Moses speaks living truth: 26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. 27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

So now you see that God's law that included the sabbath command existed in the people's hearts long before it was written on tables of stones.

Let me see you spin a web around this one now!

Tall hope - I'm not the one spinning a web around the issue, and that warp and weft is best suited to your exercise. Now your contradiction has come to the fore by stating now that God's law existed long before it was written, while stating the opposite earlier that no such command existed! See again what you stated:

Bobbyaf:
I already said to you that no such command exists, but that Mark 2:27 implied a purpose for God giving the sabbath to mankind generally, and more specifically, Adam, and no doubt strengthens Genesis 3:1-3.

Then. . .

Bobbyaf:
So now you see that God's law that included the sabbath command existed in the people's hearts long before it was written on tables of stones.

Besides, if these laws and commandments existed long before they were written on stones as you said, then it all the more confirms that you're spinning a web into God's precious Word, for these reasons:

1. The Law written on our hearts is under the New Covenant and not before. How do you explain the New Covenant as existing before the Old Covenant?

2. The prophets of the Old Testament recognized that the laws and commandments were not enacted in Genesis, but rather by the hand of Moses:

Neh. 9:14 - "And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."

I King 2:3 - "And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself."

John 1:17 - "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

My simple premise is that you cannot apply the Mosaic Law wider than its context; and if you take the time to read the Scriptures, then you wil see what the Law of the Sabbath is and HOW it was stipulated to be observed/kept.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
As I have told you repeatedly the word sanctify means to set apart for holy use. This also begs the question, why would a wise God set apart a day immediately after creation and watch it being profaned by His people? What would be the purpose of making a day holy, and then have that day mean nothing to those who lived in the time the day was made holy?

This is your own ranting, not mine. I have discussed this enquiry to show the full import of why God made a statement about the rest in Genesis. Your problem is that you keep reading a law in Genesis and can't find the verse for it!

Bobbyaf:
Thats because your brain is so wired that you're not able to see the command. You're looking for a direct command written in words. The act of God in making the day holy and sanctifying it needs no explanation. The question to ponder, was Adam aware that God sanctified the day? If he was, then he knew what he aught to have done with the seventh day. He knew that at every seventh day, he and Eve would cease attending the garden and rest in order to commune with their Creator.

Again, you have no verse for the command you force into Genesis - this is classic eisegesis (forcefully reading your own thoughts into Scripture)! That is why I have asked you umpteen times to state HOW the sabbath was to be kept or observed according to the Law; but you have been evading the question. When you take time off and search out the stipulations for observing the Sabbath according to the Law, then issues will become simpler for you.

Bobbyaf:
Isn't your statement a contradiction? Are you accusing us of something that the bible itself says we aught to do?

Sorry, the Bible did not say anywhere that you ought to use other passages to explain what is not in the Scriptures! That is what cultists do; so my statement was not contradictory.

Bobbyaf:
If Jesus said the sabbath was made for mankind, who are you to argue against that? Cannot you see that you're the one who is mis-concieved?

I did not argue against what Jesus said, so your cheap accusations and empty drivel are simply eristic. I only provided the context of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees by comparing Mark 2:27 with Matt. 12:5 to show the Lord made no reference to Genesis, but rather to the Law.

Bobbyaf:
The same principle would apply to all the patriarchs. They lived in the same time era as Adam. They were comtemporaries.

Would you please do the one thing everyone is asking: provide texts in Genesis for your arguments.

Bobbyaf:
And I still maintain it is the most ridiculous argument because its true. Its you and your kind who have rejected the plain "thus saith the Lord", by keeping a day that was established by the RCC under Rome.

Let me show you what ridiculous cultists like the SDA do. They push their own thoughts into the precious Word of God; and when asked to provide verses for their superstitions, they have none, and then will launch into attacks of all sorts. I have also asked you to check the historical antecedence to Sunday if you had any doubts, which obviously you did not do - but rather came back with this tattered accusation against the RCC.

On the contrary, the Lord Himself set the principle of a good understanding of His Word -

             "Take heed WHAT ye hear" (Mark 4:24), and
             "Take heed therefore HOW ye hear" (Luke 8:18).

It is not enough to noise a "thus saith the Lord" without seeking a contextual understanding of what is being spoken by the Lord. Both principles of WHAT and HOW are brought together by the Lord Jesus Himself in Luke 10:26 -

"He said unto him, WHAT is written in the law? HOW readest thou?"

And that is precisely the approach I have sought after in my discussions and in the questions I offered you, rather than your cultic noise and vexed disregard for context.

Bobbyaf:
Let me give you an example of how one can use one passage to shed light on another that isn't so clear. Look at:

Genesis 5:23,24, And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God: .

Any honest person reading a text like this would go away wondering what was meant by "and he was not; for God took him"

Listen to Paul as he expounds in Hebrews 11:5, 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

What was not made very clear in Genesis is now made clear in Hebrews 11. Thats just one of many examples.

I don't disparage that, and that is what I followed in the case of Mark 2:27 and Matt. 12:5 to show that the Lord was pointing to the Law of Moses and not to any law in Genesis. If you apply the same principle as you just did above, you will find that what was stated in Heb. 11:5 is referenced clearly in Gen. 5:23-24. However, you have no verse in Genesis for what you proposed in Mark 2:27 - and you have said so yourself many times!

@Bobbyaf,

You will keep puffing up empty heat on the subject if you can't find Scripture to defend what you're arguing.

Bobbyaf:
My research bari_kade would then lead me to ask you to please tell the forum as to when Jesus instituted the sabbath. Was it instituted at the time of Moses, or was it at the beginning as reported by Genesis.

Jesus did not institute the Sabbath given already in Exodus 20 (if you know the meaning of 'institute'). I have already asked you umpteen times to clearly state what Law you are using in your argument of the sabbath, and as usual you dodged the questions and gave no answer. See again:

#1.

bari_kade:
Question #1: On what basis did Christ "bring back the true purpose of the sabbath" - on the basis of God's command to Adam in Genesis; or on the basis of the Law?

Question #2: If you say Genesis, why then has it been so difficult for you to provide a verse in Genesis for that command??

Question #3: If you deny it was on the basis of the Law, why then did Christ speak in reference to the Law in Matt. 12:5 on the same subject?

#2.

bari_kade:
Question #12: Where do you find the 4th commandment - in Genesis or in Exodus? The reason for this is that I'm concerned about your making a Judaic law wider than its context. So, what commandments are you referring to - the one God gave Adam, or the one given to the Jews? If God gave the 10 commandments to Adam, please find me the verse in Genesis for that!

Since you're very fond of dodging questions, your rhetoric is not surprising at all. When you clearly state what basis (Genesis or Exodus) your arguments are put across, then I'll take it up from there.

Bobbyaf:
The law as given to Moses might not have existed in its form then at the time of creation, but the principle of it did. What did Eve commit when she stole the forbidden fruit? When Eve listened to Lucifer's voice rather than God's did she commit idolatry? When Adam put her before God did he commit idolatry also? When Cain killed Able there was no written law saying "thou shalt not kill" but such laws were already built in their hearts and they were vey much familiar with its principles.

The Bible does not tell us that Adam and Eve committed idolatory. Rather, it simply states:

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" - I Tim. 2:14.

Again and again, I have appealed that you don't try to make the Bible say what it does not say!

Bobbyaf:
Besides, I never had to use any law to clearly show why I believe Adam, Eve and the rest of God's righteous people kept the sabbath. Genesis 2:1-3 has already explained about God "sanctifying" the seventh day.

Do you recognize your own contradiction? If you never had to use any law about Adam and Eve being commanded to keep the sabbath, why then have you been arguing for such a law that did not exist, and for which you cannot find any verse to substantiate?

@mrpataki,

My bros, your entry is prophetic! We had a Bible study yesterday and the guest teacher who led our group was speaking on that same thing you just highlighted. I was much blessed by the balance in his studies and the challenges he offered.

May God bless you in these endtimes and make you count in the vanguard of His Gospel.

Senior erudite, mrpataki. . . you know you've been quite as much a blessing to me as well.

@ishmael,

I am truly humbled at your response - and I trust it is genuine. If you recall, I said quite early in this thread that I sue for peace as well: but not at the expense of truth. May God keep and protect you and all yours in the midst of your neighbours.

God bless.

@mrpataki,

Many thanks and God's blessings be yours as well. I have not shared extensively on the subject of the Sabbath, but only in part. I had hoped that our SDA.f would have seen the point, but he has chosen not as yet.

The Sabbath is a very great blessing God intended in Genesis for man, and its real, full import was only to be realized in Christ, and not in the Law - as I shared earlier. The Law served only as a shadow; but Christ is the reality of whatever blessings God intended for man (Col. 2:17).

The SDA clearly has mixed issues about the true Sabbath, and any Christian not keeping Saturday comes under their condemnation. Rather than assume such an accusative position, one would have hoped that Bobbyaf learns from others what he does not yet understand.

Blessings.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
And I will remind you constantly that the word "man" in Mark 2:27 is used generically to mean mankind. Go do some research and you'll see that truth. One doesn't need a command to see the obvious, or what is implied in both Mark and Genesis. The fact that God on day seven sanctified or set aside the day, its pretty obvious that the moment He did it, it meant that any person whom He created would have come to that realization, especially when we stop to think how beneficial the sabbath is.

Your research would have lead you to understand that the Lord Jesus in Mark 2:27 did not refer to Genesis at all, but rather to the Law of Moses as confirmed in Matt. 12:5. You cannot use a Law that was enacted centuries later to imply anything upon Adam who was never given such a Law.

That is why I again and again asked for such a "command" for Adam, and in all cases as recently again, you confirmed that no such command exists! As long as you say that no such command exists, then plainly Adam was not given such a command that did not exist!

Bobbyaf:
In other words God set an example for mankind. He didn't rest becasue He was tired, but set aside a day in which we can celebrate His creative works. Each time the 7th day came around, Adam and Eve were to rest in celebration of God's creatorship. So, the coined argument about there not being a command for Adam and Eve to have kept the sabbath can be taken for what it was, pointless and meaningless.

Okay then - I take it that if there was no such command for Adam and Eve, all your argument about God having commanded them to keep the Sabbath is pointless and meaningless! As long as you hold onto the this "pointless and meaningless" argument, please rest your misguided non-existent command for Adam and Eve.

Bobbyaf:
It means nothing. There are a lot of things that were not explicitly said in scriptures for which we have used other passages to explain, and the ones in Mark and Genesis are no exception.

I know that SDA has championed this art of "using other passages to explain" what is not in the Scriptures! And that's what you have been doing all along and still can't unknot yourself from your misconceptions.

Bobbyaf:
So according to you by virtue of your understanding of the whole issue, is that only the hebrews/jews were previlaged to be able to appreciate that God was Creator? All those righteous patriarchs like Jared, Enoch, and others were never made aware of the need to commemorate God's creation. So God had to suspend the purpose of the sabbath some 2000 years after creation for a people called the Hebrews. This is the most ridiculous argument among Sunday-keeping christians. It makes God look partial.

You miss the whole purpose of the Sabbath in Genesis, and that's why SDA thinks 'God looks partial' (sorry, I don't take that careless vacancy of thought). I have already discussed this in my previous rejoinder, and you can just go over it again. But it would again be interesting for you to provide texts for Jared, Enoch and others about HOW they kept the Sabbath (at least, someone has asked that question earlier).

It may be the most ridiculous argument by Sunday-keeping Christians because the SDA is so confused about issues relating to the Sabbath and are very quick to condemn others for not keeping a Saturday observance. As you asked earlier, "Why merely follow rules for rules sake?"

Bobbyaf:
Re-creation not in that sense of the word. Besides, playing football is not considered resting.

Simply check out the meaning of "recreation" - and then you'll understand that everyone doesn't have to banter to your meaning alone.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Listen to yourself! As if your questions are oh so important.  , what a pompous fellow!

I told you already that I'm used to the silliness of SDA members who launch into attacks when they run out of their fatuity.

Bobbyaf:
My saying that I wasn't aware of any scriptural stipulations is exactly that. This format of debate between us is unique. I hardly saw the relevance and I still don't, as to your line of questions as it related to the relevance of the sabbath truth.

I don't question that at all - any careful reader can see the vacancy of thought.

Bobbyaf:
Sabbath keeping will vary according to cultural differences.

My statement on cultural differences has nothing to do with Matthew 5.

Nope, it doesn't. Matt. 5 only helped your accusations more than your assent.

Bobbyaf:
I am not aware of relaxing any law based on what was said about cultural differences. If you don't know what I am talking about don't be afriad to ask for clarification. Some other time I will clarify what I mean by cultural differences.

There's no time I have been afraid to offer questions - and so far you have been scared of offering any answers to the 15 questions already asked.

Bobbyaf:
Its strange how you can use this text to support your argument yet you fail to see its relevance as it relates to people other than the jews keeping the sabbath.

There's nothing strange about that if you're still mixing up issues.

Bobbyaf:
I am glad you say argument and not idea! I have no time to waste with you on the subject. What I have said is said. If you desire to keep bickering on the matter go ahead.

What you call "bickering" is a classic pun employed by SDA members when they can't wash their careless statements in public.

Bobbyaf:
Let us examine Matthew 12:5 that you keep harping on. It says:

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

First of all law in the sentence means the writings of Moses. Jesus' references to this law was to highliht the hypocracy of the jewish leaders and how they viewed the sabbath. Your duty is to fully understand what Jesus meant by the priests profaning the sabbath without being blameless. You need to seek the context of Jesus' words, and stop loosely using passages for which you lack the proper understaning.

If you had a good training, all this noise you just made would have been unnecessary. Matt. 12:5 was offered you in consonance with Mark 2:27 to the simple point that the Lord Jesus was referring to the Law of Moses in answer to your allegation that Adam being commanded to observe that Sabbath!

Besides, another fumble in your reply of "without being blameless" should have read "without blame!" Your statement changed the meaning of what the Lord said and actually was accusing the priests of being blamed!

Bobbyaf:
Yes Jesus gave a discourse, but was He denouncing the sabbath, or was He showing them to look at the more weightier matters of the law? Why merely follow rules for rule's sake?

That's the big issue - "Why merely follow rules for rules sake?" - and that's why I have been asking cogent questions that will help you see where you were bungling the issue.

Bobbyaf:
Your showing Matthew 12:5 doesn't change one iota of truth about true sabbath keeping. It doesn't contradict in any form or fashion the general principle that the sabbath was made for mankind either.

I nowhere said that Matt. 12:5 changed anything about Sabbth. Rather, I used it to call your attention to the fact that the Lord referred  to the Law of Moses and not to Genesis for Adam being commanded to keep the Sabbath. When I asked you to provide your verse for Adam, your answer was that there was none!

Bobbyaf:
You keep harping about my not finding a command for the sabbath given to Adam as if that will somehow prove you right and me wrong.

Feeling bad already for your lack of a Genesis verse?

Bobbyaf:
I already said to you that no such command exists, but that Mark 2:27 implied a purpose for God giving the sabbath to mankind generally, and more specifically, Adam, and no doubt strengthens Genesis 3:1-3.

If no such "command" exists for Adam, why read such a "command" into Mark 2:27 where it does not exist in the first place? Now you have left Genesis 2 and jumped to Genesis 3!

Bobbyaf:
What you have failed to do is prove that Adam was not a man.

Tsk! I never said Adam was not a man! I only requested you to provide your Genesis verse for a command for Adam!

@ishmael,

Whenever I just feel like a little sport of amusement, I check out your posts.

For goodness sake, why don't you just solve your plethora of unsubstantiated and convoluted ideas by checking the sources of your misguided inputs? I pray you don't read me being unnecessarily emotional; but that would only be thanks to the fact that you've always made inputs that are far-fetched and bear no weight at all to the core of issues.

ishmael:
Why do Christians always accuse muslims of worshipping an idol and not the true God??

Besides several others, Muhammad only used Biblical terms and names without a clear understanding of the God of the Bible.

Second, Muhammad's hatred for both Jews and Christians betrays his masque of a false prophet pretending to have come in the name of the Biblical God.

Third, the historical anticedents as confirmed in the Qur'an show that Muhammad venerated only a few of the idols of his day - and this has been well-attested by even Muslim writers.

Fourth, Muhammad knew nothing about the Spirit of God, without whom it is impossible to receive revelation from the Biblical God. At least, this one alone should help shape your thinking about this tired and worn argument about Christians and Muslims worshipping the same God!

ishmael:
What if the muslims accuse christians of not worshipping the true God but an idol??

It is not a question of "what if" - this accusation has been levied time and again against Christians by Muslims themselves. If you actually have been following events in recent developments, what have Muslims actually been calling the "Christian" West? Among several appellations, anything "Christian" or "Western" is referred to as "the great shaitan" (Satan) that must be destroyed!

ishmael:
How would you react to that?? You will only try to defend yourself thats what i know; but that does n't make u right in anyway.

Two things: (a) anyone on the receiving end is bound to offer a defence - it is called apologetics; and apologetics is not a dead art in Islam; (b) if Muslims try to defend themselves, it also does not make them right in anyway - and that's why Islam is constantly being examined and queried.

ishmael:
If i may ask, what about Jehovah's witness people that say Jesus christ is not God?? are they not worshipping the true God??

Jehovah Witnesses as a group are referred to as a Christian cult, and not an Islamic cult. There are as many Islamic cults in Muhammad's religion that are attacking themselves, and not one of them bothers about sects in other religions when debating one another within Islam.

This cheap interjection of appealing to Jehovah Witnesses is a well-known technique employed by people who have run out of straws and are only grasping after desperate, empty fancies to cover up their fallacies. People arguing this way are often termed "eristic" (given to disputation for its own sake and often employing specious arguments). I trust you can do better than that.

Again, for the sake of sanity I would just ignore your lingo and seek the substance of your input, if you had any. Point made if you can't read and see issues.

@trini_girl,

I actually waited all along to see if you would be persuaded that you were mixing things up before contributing my views. I wonder why the topic states that "Pre-Marital Sex Is Not Fornication", and then you have been holding a view "throughout" that it is actually fornication?

No worries if what is argued for is actually argued against. That was the part I wanted to point out.

@trini_girl,

Let me assure you - I never mind people using vexed lingo on me, so your "some new type of fool" does not convey what you're going round in circles for.

You've been trying to dribble round the topic in order to defend premarital sex as not fornication. What's the point in your latest definition then confirming that the same pre-marital is actually fornication, and yet deny it again?

Lol,. . . thanks.

Lol. . . abeg anyone wey know the answer fit help the guy. We no go blame them if the NYSC have themselves together in the first place! To enter school, na wah - to graduate and leave school, na double wahala!

Hehehe!! You have me in stitches!

Bo, school dey there - I just came back home for hols, and my 'reserve' dollar don nearly finish. In a few weeks I go vamoose from naija again (without the anointing oil from that dear lady)!

@trini_girl,

If someone has made up his or her mind to fornicate, they will look for all kinds of excuses to defend it.

The topic Pre-Marital Sex Is Not Fornication is trying to defend pre-marital sex as not fornication. But once and again you're hinting that Pre-marital sex is indeed fornication:

trini_girl:
The Complete Word Study Old Testament suggests three possible meanings for the Hebrew word "zanah." The first being fornication (pre-marital, illicit sex), the second being adultery (marital, illicit sex), and the third being idolatry (worship of a person or thing besides Yahweh).

Right there you have it - "The first being fornication (pre-marital, illicit sex)," and that says it all. What is illicit is illegal, and what is illegal constitutes sin in the Bible - which is already admitted in your contextual definition, unless no one is to understand English anymore!

trini_girl:
context definition of FORNICATION: Illicit sex - which means unlawful, illegal or NON CONVENTIONAL sexual activity for example harlotry, incest, homosexuality etc etc etc.

Now this:

trini_girl:
There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting adults, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication. It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral. IT IS NOT FORNICATION and IT IS NOT A SIN

Please show us the one evidence in the Bible where two "consenting adults in a committed monogamous relationship over an extended period of time" exists as "normal". This going round in circles is not helping the argument, because already the definition you gave recognizes pre-marital sex as fornication.

trini_girl:
The more we learn what fornication truly is, the more we learn that "normal" pre marital sex is not fornication.

That being the case, it is the same thing as stating that "normal fornication is not fornication" all the same - which brings your argument to the ground since you already defined fornication earlier as pre-marital sex!

Na wah!
I double your yarnings. Not so long ago when 'yours truly' was about janding for school to the West, one of my neighbours gave me a gift of 'anointing oil' to hang my faith on. Fair enough, I had not been brought up hanging on such; although I believe it has its proper place. When she discovered that I had not used it until I came back home to naija for holidays, she went gaga dotty! Me, as I'm not used to keeping up with an atmosphere with people, I simply tried to return her bottle to her with liquid contents intact!

Anyway, talk later.

@goodguy,

goodguy:
What I've gathered so far from this thread is that "Christians" believe Muslims worship an idol simply because they deny the concept of Trinity. (I find that quite funny actually).

It's actually funny that you think the Trinity settles everything about the great divide between both faiths, which is far from the core of issues. What you haven't taken into consideration is that Muhammad denied the core teachings of Jesus Christ. And while claiming to have been sent by the same God of the Biblical faiths, Muhammad failed on many counts to convincingly prove his claim in substance and merely used Biblical terminology and names of prophets to pretend his prophetic call.

goodguy:
However, what you have failed to realize is that the only reason why anyone would deny an idealogy about something you believe in, is because they believe in that same thing too.

Quite on the contrary. Following your line of reasoning, could we say that: 'The only reason why an atheist would deny the beliefs of theism is because atheists believe in the existence of God too'?? I'm staggered at such a logic; and if you want to test this idea out - just simply ask the atheists on the Forum.

goodguy:
If Muslims truly worship another god, they wouldn't bother arguing on the concept of Trinity with us in the first place.

And since they bother arguing the Trinity with us, does that mean they worship the same 'God'?

What you are failing to consider is Muhammad's denials of the core beliefs of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; and he made these denials by revelation, and not by opinion! You cannot have the same deity both proclaiming the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ while denying it at the same time!