₦airaland Forum

software:
how many oyinbo pastors dey rake hin memeber for church. sebi everything na for naija. take care man

Correct guy! Even wen everything na for naija, oyinbo get their own way of initiating and negotiating the corners!

@Seun,

I can't understand why you can feel that statements questioning whether people are Christians or not are judgemental, but you've been so taciturn as to ishmael's judgemental attitude towards the Jews and Christians. I'm just wondering. I know I haven't accused ishmael of not being a christian; but then it doesn't stand to reason that you often jump at that statement. Perhaps it would be balanced to caution ishmael as well to not be as judgemental in his posts, especially because he has not made statements of facts on about the Jews in his acknowledgements that Muhammad hated them.

@ishmael,

I have said it before and will say it again: Muslims do not worship the same God they categorically deny against both Jews and Christians with the unbridled hatred Muhammad propagated. If you cannot connect the dots, your case cannot be helped further until you open your eyes to reality and cease from the fancies you've been parading.


@davidylan,

davidylan:
. . .your incredulous claim that you worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, more of your fanatical friends are busy telliing us with threats and bombs that we definitely do not worship the same God.

If truly you believe such a lie, can you ask yourself why Muhammad's lifestyle was radically different from those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Precisely my point about opening his eyes to reality.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
Please answer my own question; Do Jews and Christians worship the same God??

Yes, they do - and my answer is based on what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures teach about that one same God! It is not based on opinions of men who close their eyes to what the Scriptures teach.

ishmael:
Muhammad hated Jews because they did not believe Jesus Christ was ever born.

And please, where did you ferret this out-of-the-galaxy idea from?? You again should please face reality and not a far-fetched opinion that is fogged to reality.

ishmael:
He hated christians because they equate Jesus christ with God by calling him God. They see Jesus Christ as a Prophet of God and not God.

Right, I'll give that to you because that is partly true. A few things you'll have to understand, though:

It seems to me that you're quite happy to applaud this Muhammad's hatred towards other people and yet question why Christians on the Forum are disavowing that very hatred that Muhammad preached.

Second, we have often challenged this hatred of the Arab self-acclaimed prophet as contradictory in character and calling to the Biblical prophets of God.

Thirdly, the very real threat of Muhammad's hatred is what has been partly the current driving the debates in this and other fora for the simple reason that this hate is breeding a global threat.

Fourth, when discussing issues, please make reference to facts and not fancies - because I know real Muslims who have categorically stated that Christians and Jews worship a different "God" than the "Allah" they worship in Islam.

Firth, if you really want to be persuasive, please delve into the Scriptures that adherents derive their tenets from. You really cannot make statements for the sake of it without reference to the real world. So far, that's what you've been doing - disregarding reality and proposing fallacious fancies.

davidylan:
Belloti has proved that, like Nigerians, the world does not know how to count themselves!

We just don't have the correct abacus in place, as so many of the beeds on them have been sold by politicians jostling for the defunct 3rd term.

@Bobbyaf,

After your accusations, now you're attempting to provide answers to my questions. A few remarks before I deal with your failed attempts. In the first place, you intoned that you were not aware that there were any stipulations:

(a) HOW did the Scripture command that the Sabbath be kept or observed?

Bobbyaf:
I am not aware that they did. God's law of 10 commandments already did that initially.

Perhaps, you have had to go back and seek out God's instruction on the issue, and I'm glad for you to come back with something.

However, you actually are bringing up issues that are still disturbing to your premise. This is what you stated:

Bobbyaf:
Sabbath keeping will vary according to cultural differences.

I find that a very strange statement coming from you, especially when you tried to use Matt. 5 to prejudge me earlier. But did you notice that your statement above again falls short of the Word of God? If you are advocating a relaxing of the Law according to "cultural differences", then in Matt. 5:18-19, Jesus said quite the opposite to what you just said. The Word of God is not subject to cultural differences concerning the Laws and commandments that He issued:

Exo. 12:49 - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."

Secondly, I see you're now often abandoning your Genesis argument in favour of the Law of Moses in your quote of Exodus 20: 10 & 8, with this subscript:

Bobbyaf:
Moses no doubt gave guidelines of specificity as far as proper sabbath keeping was concerned in his time which were based on the prevailing circumstances.

What this says to me is that you're confusing issues all the more for yourself, because the same Law you denied Jesus made reference to in Mark 2:27 (when compared with Matt. 12:5) is the very same context you're now applauding. My concern has been that, if you can't find a text for your Adam-sabbath commandment in Genesis, then your arguement will appear weak thereto.

Thirdly, I assume you're just are making another one of those implied inferences for an idea that is not in the word of God. When you state that "that is not the kind of work that the command highlights" but have no qualms about "lifting the tithes and free will offering", you're playing a convenient chance of games. Read again the Exo. 20:10 that you referenced:

"But 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, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."

The Bible says in it that shalt not do "any work!" Of course, I am very aware that elsewhere, there's an injunction for the work not being servile; but you earlier hinted that the Sabbath was for recreation. Now my concern is this: If the Sabbath is for recreation as you said, what is wrong with people or footballers player a soccer game on Saturday?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade I will leave you to your tricks. Keep playing the game and see who will lose eventually when the truth confonts you.

The tricks you have been playing all this while by condemning other Christians on a Sabbath subject that you have not been able to defend all this while is confronting you already! Face it!

Bobbyaf:
I have nothing to fear by being obedient to God's word, so I am a free man in Jesus.

No one was intimidating you - we just wanted answers to simply stated questions, which up until now you have been evading with cleverly convoluted dribbles!

Bobbyaf:
Matthew 5 speaks of you as teaching men to disobey God's commands.

Typical - I've heard this many times from SDA members who are very quick to judge people when their arguments have been exposed as baseless.

Bobbyaf:
In God's heavenly kingdom you're not favoured because you make out God to be a liar by mis-representing His words.

Nevermind that you're not my Judge, so your vexations have no heat. Not once did I make God out to be a liar; and typically when SDA members have run out of their game, the characteristic next thing to do is launch into attacks, accusations and prejudices.

Bobbyaf:
1. When Jesus said the sabbath was made for mankind you have insisted that it was made for the jews.

And I gave cogent reasons for that by comparing Scripture with Scripture - the very thing you failed to do!

Bobbyaf:
You draw falsely upon other references to further confuse your readers, and no doubt yourself. You barage the board with long drawn out speeches, and irrelivant questionings,  that have no bearing on the real issues.

Keep accusing and foaming your vexations - I'm quite used to it by now. Where are your answers to any one of the 15 cogent questions I asked you? And where indeed have you been able to sanely present your Genesis verse for a commandment of the Sabbath to Adam as you argued?

Bobbyaf:
2. When Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass untill heaven and earth pass first", you draw upon other references to further confuse the issues.

I asked questions, you gave no answers. If that leaves you confused, read the rejoinders again - at least there are other people asking you to answer my questions.

Bobbyaf:
3. The scriptures that clearly show that Paul kept the sabbath even in nature you have clearly denied. You have also failed to see the frequency with which Paul kept the sabbath during his missionary journeys as his custom was.

I dealt with every single verse in your "Paul kept the sabbath" misconceptons. The questions that followed them are still unanswered by you!

Bobbyaf:
4. You have also failed to notice that not once has the NT given us a command to observe Sunday as a day to meet, or has been designated as such.

And you have also woefully failed to present with clarity the verse that commands Christians to meet for worship on Friday night or Saturday! I asked you to check with early church historians on the issue if you had any doubts - you were glibly silent on that one as well!

Bobbyaf:
Its about time you confess that your going to church on Sundays is traditonal that scriptural.

And it's just about time for you to own up that your allegations and accusations have no basis in the precious Word of God. Using a subject you don't understand, cannot defend, and have no verse in Genesis for, to attack other people is hypocrisy. Desist from it, and seek the truth of God's word.

You can start by answering my questions, and continue to make it obvious that after painfully searching for several days, you still have no verse in Genesis for God commanding Adam to keep the Sabbath!

Regards.

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:
@ bari_kade,
Are my slogans that predictable here on nairaland
I must cobble together another series of me then.

The thing pass me bros! Wetin we for do with all this raking and acrobatics now in the spiritual arena? The only sane thing to have asked was what you did ask!

What is the Lord's Sabbath - and HOW did the Bible say it was supposed to be observed?

@ishmael,

I hope you can read simple English? Is that the best straw you could grasp?

Answers to your question:

bari_kade:
Muhammad did not receive a partial revelation about Jesus Christ; rather, he categorically denied the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God! None of the Biblical prophets (e.g., David in the Psalms) mentioned by Muhammad in the Qur'an ever denied the divine Sonship of the Messiah - if there was ever any one such Biblical prophet who made such a denial, then please quote him!

Did you miss that before, or you just wanted to play chess on the Forum? When the revelation about the Person and work of Jesus Christ is denied after it has been revealed, what does your Bible tell you God will do to the eristical denier?

Meanwhile, up until now you still have not attempted an answer to my question: "What crime did Christians and Jews commit to merit Muhammad's unbridled hatred?"

If you can't answer that, say so and prove that your arguments have no substance.

@mrpataki,

I've always suspected you were a mushrikun of classical Islamic specie!

E don tay wey your people dey hunt for your head O, especially as you have joined the Christian camp! As for me, I'm one less number of the over 6 billion muslims!

@ishmael,

ishmael:
If he denied the revelation about Jesus Christ did he deny the existence of God in heaven?? Does that make him and his followers not to be worshipping the true God??

So, you agree he denied the revelation about Jesus Christ? I'm not surprised it would come to this. What then is the substance of your argument??

I've said before and will repeat the same: the belief of the existence of 'God' in heaven does not mean that someone is worshipping the same God as revealed in the Biblical faiths. As already spelt out by 4get_me, demons do not deny the existence of ONE God [James 2:19 - "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."] - Does that mean demons are worshippers because they also believe in the existence of God?

Your argument still does not prove anything of vital import to the discussion, and you're losing the plot.

ishmael:
The God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, John the Baptist. What about the Jews that refuse to believe in Jesus Christ?? Are they not worshippers of the true God?? Are the muslims not better than them??

This prejudicial cacophony of counting the Muslims to be better than the Jews now confirms my suspicion that such language is best suited to those who hate the Jews. My question has not been answered after severally repeating it: "What crime did Christians and Jews commit to merit Muhammad's unbridled hatred?" And by making such silly remarks, you're only confirming your bias.

ishmael:
Atleast they agreed that Jesus was born by a virgin, and performed so many miracles. Please answer my question o; Do Jews worship the same God with christians??

After having besmirched the Jews, what answer are you asking for? You've been systematically polarizing yourself towards this bias for so long; and that's why I constantly appealed to you to get your facts straight before you vend your kiddy stuff. In simple language: be real!

While you're searching for the next bits of straw to clutch, here's what Jesus said about the same Jews you're derogating:

John 4:22 - "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

Gring-gring! **Lady picks up phone.

    Hello?

    Hi. Em. . . I was wondering if this is the C[/b]enter for the [b]S[/b]tudy of [b]L[/b]anguage and [b]I[/b]nformation?

    What can we do for you?
 
    I'm just wondering if you could help me with a simple definition of Pre-marital sex?

    _**coughs! What was that again?

    Please could you give me a simple definition of 'pre-marital sex'?

    Well, I. . . er. . . could send you an answer by email if you contact us online.

    Sure thing. Thanks!

    You're welcome.

------- ------------ -------

**Enquirer checks his Yahoo e-box a while later and got the following:

"Hi,

What a strange call that was! You almost got me ****! Anyhow, here's something for you if you're a student and want to know just a bit to pass your exams.

    [b]Pre-marital sex - sex preceding/before marriage.

If your enquiry needs a detailed answer, I recommend one I sometimes use from Wikipedia:

Fornication, sometimes referred to as premarital sex, is a term which refers to any sexual activity between consenting unmarried partners. Sex between unmarried persons is distinguished from adultery by use of the term 'simple fornication'; whereas relations where the woman is married is considered 'adultery'.

Just out of curiosity, is there something you wanted to say that you were too shy to . . . voice out on the phone? ."

------- ------------ -------


Okay, Nairaland - please check the recommendation of this lady at the CSLI and discuss what's possbily wrong with her answer.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
Prophet Muhammad got his revelation about Jesus Christ from God.

The God who called Jesus Christ His beloved Son could not be the same 'god' who denied the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ! Again, your opinion has no substance to reality.

ishmael:
Muhammad was born much more later after christianity started, he must have read the Bible too; but the revelation he claimed to have gotten from God was what he wrote down; and in it, God did not reveal to him that Jesus Christ was the son of God or That Jesus Christ was God. Do you blame him??

Muhammad did not receive a partial revelation about Jesus Christ; rather, he categorically denied the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God! None of the Biblical prophets (e.g., David in the Psalms) mentioned by Muhammad in the Qur'an ever denied the divine Sonship of the Messiah - if there was ever any one such Biblical prophet who made such a denial, then please quote him!

You keep mixing up issues and arriving at baseless arguments, ishmael.

gbade. x:
Quit with the yapping blabs.

Now, i'd ask you the question again as simply as possible:

who sent you that e-mail?

Phew! After how many times of being asked the same question! Is it obvious blabs787 won't provide any answers because he 'engineered' that story?

@ishmael,

ishmael:
Why should you expect them to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God when their Koran tells them that Jesus christ is a prophet of God.

Right, they should not believe what Christ Himself taught simply because 'their Koran tells them that Jesus Christ is a prophet of God', abi? And that is how you establish your theory about 'the same God' between Christians and Muslims! Please, just get practical for once and leave off this kiddy argument. Several people here are offering you the same challenge - take your conviction to the Mosques where Islam is actually practised and face reality! At least, goodguy has acknowledged that his views of Saudi Arabia simply did not stand up to scrutiny.

ishmael:
What would mohammed have gained to say jesus christ was not God?? Simple, Muhammad got a revelation from God that Jesus Christ was a Prophet and did not get the revelation that Jesus christ was the son of God or that Jesus Christ was God.

Again you are peddling your idea that has no substance to reality! It is not a partial revelation that Muhammad claimed - he categorically denied the revelation of the deity/divine Sonship of Jesus Christ. What that means is simply stated by Christ Himself:

John 8:24 - "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

That is not an opinion of Christ - it is His sure Word. Believe whatever you want about creation, the virgin birth, etc.,. . . and then deny the divine Sonship of Christ on the excuse that it is still 'the same God'; you only would still be confirming that your arguments have no substance because you still peddle ideas that have no real basis.

Let's put it this way: does it really matter that Jesus Christ Himself asks people to believe on Him as "the Son" rather than just a prophet? What do you think someone as a "Christian" would gain by believing that Jesus was merely a good man, a moral teacher, a prophet but not the Son of God?

@belloti,

belloti:
Accepted there is rancour in the arab world and there are people who misapplied the lessons of Quran, but we are talking about over 6 billion muslims the world over, morrocco, tibet, canada, nigeria, guinea etc.

What is the population of the world today? And how do you reconcile your ambitious quote of "over 6 billion muslims" to the reality on ground? This is one thing I have often wondered about from you guys - why is it so difficult for you chaps to be realistic for once?

@lafile & 4get_me,

Thanks for following the discussion. All I just require from our SDA representative is simple answers to my questions on the Sabbath. If someone does not have answers for what he/she alleges, there's no reason why they should use such baseless arguments to condemn anyone else. That has been the basic concern of my entering this discussion with him.

Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
If the sabbath begins at sunset Friday? If, you you say? , come on! Hahaha, you're giving me stitches man.

Why is it that when you try to evade questions on issues you cannot defend, then it becomes a "Hahaha" and "stitches" that expose your cosmetic arguments in the first place?

Bobbyaf:
I am taken a back as to why your wanting to know how the sabbath was supposed to be kept has any bearing as to whether ror not the sabbath is still relevant. Thats not and will never be my onous.

Read again the various comments following our debate so far, and see that I'm not the only one seeking your answer on this. At least, 4get_me and lafile are also interested. The reason why you cannot see any relevance thereto is because you have no answers for the same argument you've been noising on the Forum.

Bobbyaf:
The 4th commandment of the 10 gives all a guide as to what is required. As I have repeatedly said God has given mankind 6 working days to do his or her business, and a designated day on which to rest.

Then let me remind you of a few previous cogent questions while adding one more as a reminder:

Question #12: Where do you find the 4th commandment - in Genesis or in Exodus? If God gave the 10 commandments to Adam, please find me the verse in Genesis for that!

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?

And since you are (presumably) putting forth your arguments based on the '10 Commandments', this is simply restating what has already been stated before:

Bobbyaf, let me ask you the same question often repeated already: WHAT IS INVOLVED WITH SABBATH KEEPING according to the Law or Genesis?? HOW and WHAT did God say is involved with Sabbath keeping??

So, the added question now is:

Question #15 - Can you please state exactly HOW the Sabbath was to be kept, observed or celebrated?

Bobbyaf:
Simply because sabbath worship is not confined to a church building. Every true sabbath keeper will welcome the sacred hours at Friday sunset at home or a convinient place designated for worship. After a good night's rest we then meet as a church body to continue the worship services until sabbath ends.

My question was not about where you keep/observe the sabbath - a church building, at home or a covenient place. My question was more about HOW and WHEN you observe it.

I think so far you've been pushing an agenda that you neither understand nor are able to provide Biblical verses for in Genesis. And if you really have any substance to your allegations ab initio, could you please do us the favour of answering the questions offered you instead of the cosmetic and empty 'Hahaha' and 'stitches'?

Regards.

@chessito,

Perhaps you should have clearly stated what you meant from the onset so people would not have misread you. All the same, there's nothing like holy partiality - don't let anyone mislead you, "For there is no respect of persons with God" (Rom. 2:1).

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade you cannot read into scripture what you want it to say. Merely reading one scripture passage to indicate a Sunday gathering precedence isn't what Peter would appreciate when he cautioned against private interpretation of scriptures.

In the same vein, you cannot ignore other texts and read into Mark 2:27 what you want it to say, that it does not say. In all the texts offered you I have attempted to follow the principle set forth in II Pet. 1:20.

Bobbyaf:
So let me work it out for you as to what happened in Acts 20:7.
Paul simply planned a special meeting that would have occured after the usual sabbath services.

The Acts 20:7 gathering was a meeting set for the purpose of breaking bread, and Paul only used the occasion to speak to them. There's no indication that Paul planned that meeting, as you're again reading issues into the text. The essential features of the Christian meetings ab initio are as found in Acts 2:42 - "And they continued stedfastly in ^(a)the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in ^(b)breaking of bread, and in ^(c)prayers." This was the precedence for Acts 20:7, and it was not a unique experience.

Bobbyaf:
I went on to say that it was referred to the first day of the week because the sabbath had already passed, and that would naturally lead into the first day of the week based on jewish time reckoning. Hence your question about our meeting on Saturday night is totally irrelivant.

You often see people's questions as "irrelevant" because you simply can't offer cogent answers - and that, perhaps, explains why your latest entry carefully dodged all my previous questions.

If the seventh day begins at sunset Friday, why wait until Saturday before gathering in SDA for worship? The reason I'm asking this question (whether or not "irrelevant" to you) is because up until now you've been evading answers to HOW the sabbath was supposed to be kept/observed according to Scripture. What you don't have Scripture answers for, cannot be used to denounce other Christians.

There are 14 cogent questions requiring your answers - and, please, don't miss the contexts. As long as you keep evading these questions, your exercise will only be cosmetic to what you cannot defend.

Regards.

When Jesus spoke on prayer in Matthew 6:7, He wasn't discouraging anyone calling upon the Name of the Lord several times. What He did was refuting making vain repetition.

Anyone reading His prayer in John 17 will find that He mentioned the Father no less than six times - in just one prayer! Again, in the same night of the Gethsemane prayer, we read that He prayed the third time, saying the same words (Matt. 26:44).

Sometimes, when prayers were made by the saints, there was no mention made robotically or mechanically of "Jesus' name." In Acts 2:14-15, it was enough that they addressed the Lord -

"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."

Praying in the Name of the Lord Jesus is not merely a matter of mechanical pronouncement or a sort of 'formula'. The Lord Jesus pledged His name to believers' prayer as the authority that unlocks the power, grace and divine riches that the Father promised to His children.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I notice that it is quite convinient for you to not use context in your display of 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7,which have nothing to do with the christian church setting any precedent for Sunday services, yet when I rightfully declare Mark 2:27 as providing meaning for Genesis 2:1-3, you make a big deal out of it by cross referencing other passages that have no bearing on the subject.

It's quite simple, really. The basic assumptions you made on Mark 2:27 has no reference to Gen. 2:1-3, and when I challenged your presupposition thereto, you severally confirmed you had no text in Genesis for what you argued in Adam's case! Not only so, my refutation of your premise conclusively brought out the context that the Lord Jesu was referring to the Law, and confirmed the same by pointing to Matt. 12:5. If that was not contextual, you said absolutely nothing thereto.

The same applies to your complaint about I Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:7. In the former, I merely asked you a few questions, while clearly discussing why your presumptions thereto have no substance. Same applies to the latter; and I would have expected that you helped point out how I missed the contexts.

You cannot make blank statements upon just about any verse of Scripture; and that is why I offered cogent questions on your handling of the Sabbath as to HOW it was supposed to be kept/observed and WHAT was involved in its observance.

Bobbyaf:
It is very simple bari_kade, and no amount of spinning will help you circumvent the simple expression of the Lord Himself. "The sabbath was made for man (mankind)" If you want to limit mankind to the jewish race then go ahead.

If only you see your own spinning that has pedantically refused to answer my questions to you. Rather, if you even attempted an answer, it was your embarrassing admission that you had no verse for the "Adam" you substituted in Mark 2:27; nevermind your inability to deal with the corresponding verse in Matt. 12:5 confirming the Lord Jesus was speaking about the Law and not Genesis.

Bobbyaf:
If you're saying that Adam wasn't a man then what else should we argue about?

I never said anything such thing about Adam not being a man. My appeal was that you read issues contextually and not force your personal ideas into Scripture. The latter is called eisegesis ('reasoning into' - bias) and the former is exegesis (reasoning out of - context).

Bobbyaf:
Common sense alone should dictate that if God immediately after creation set aside a day as holy, and blessed, then Adam had to be apart of that experience. Why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and when things were perfect, and then wait some 2000 years after, within a sinful environment, to then pass on the significance of rest to a people called the Hebrews? beats me!

Common sense without revelation hasn't helped much, has it? That is why I only requested a simple text to show where God commanded Adam to keep the Sabbath; and HOW it was supposed to be kept/observed. Answer? You had none.

Now let me help you about how God makes a stipulation and waits several decades or centuries before it is fulfilled. You're very familiar with Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. . ." Notice Isaiah's use of the present tense ('. . .IS born') as if the Messiah was already born in his day. It was not until centuries later that Christ was born - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4).

In the same vein, I fail to see where God expressly gave a commandment/law to Adam to keep/observe the Sabbath in Genesis. If He spoke of the seventh day in Genesis, it is understood that He had His eyes far into the future beyond Genesis when the full import of the Sabbath would be given to humanity in Christ. I believe this is why the Lord Jesus referred to Himself as 'Lord of the Sabbath' - the One who brings divine rest in fulfillment of what God intended in Genesis. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28 ).

Bobbyaf:
That is why I said that Mark 2:27 provides meaning for people like you who find it extremely difficult seeing the logics of scripture.

Again and again, I've provided you with clear reference to show that the Lord Jesus Christ was referring to the Law in the parallel text in Matt. 12:5. He made no reference to Genesis when answering the query of the Pharisee - is that too difficult for you to see? That is why I have asked umpteenth time that you provide a verse in Genesis where Adam was commanded to keep the Sabbath.

Bobbyaf:
As soon as you find a text that commands that Sunday has been designated as the New day on which to meet and celebrate the Lord's supper I will gladly accept it as truth. Until then I will stick with the original sabbath for now. Since heaven and earth are still standing as Jesus alluded to, then His law still stands, and if His law still stands then the sabbath still stands.

Easy - just please give me the reference for "the Law" of the Sabbath. At least we have discussed the Sunday issue and I followed through with questions asking if you actually gather on Saturday nights for worship in the SDA. What you don't obey cannot be used against other Christians - that is what the Bible calls hypocrisy.

It's not surprising that no answers have been forth-coming from you about the questions I asked. I've only entered this debate with you in hope that after answering my questions, then you will convince yourself from Scripture that your presumptions are just that: your presumptions.

Regards.

@goodguy,

goodguy:

However, believers in Christ would not confess a deity that is antithetical to holiness and righteouness as being the very same God who sent His Son for our salvation.

That is where everyone misses the point! The Deity is not antithetical to holiness and righteousness, but the extremists only make it appear that way.

It's tedious going through all these matters again for the sake of argument. Readers on the Forum know for a certainty that the point cannot be missed - the Allah of the Qur'an gave leeway to Muhammad's questionable lifestyle.

You have often approached discussions from the premise that Christianity and Islam both worship the same God. My question is: If the God preached by Jesus Christ is the same preached by Muhammad, what is the explanation you have for the way Christ handled sexual purity and the antithetical way Muhammad treated the subject?

@goodguy,

While at a friend's house, I was just sitting as a Guest online watching the interesting development of this burning issue. I'll take my friend's advise to offer brevity and not overstate the obvious.

Sorry to notice that your responses keep missing the point because they really are not based on reality. Somehow, I'm persuaded that you're basing your convictions merely on ideas that have no substance in the tenets of either faith; and if you're pushing your agenda in disregard of the core beliefs of these faiths, it then does not stand to reason that you even had a serious concern ab initio.

When you make arguments that disregard the core beliefs and practices of either faiths, it would seem that you're asking us to have a religion either ways in total disregard of the core expressions and beliefs of the religion in question. Which would simply make your arguments only tangential to reality. Let me offer just a line for now to the point:

goodguy:
Nonetheless, I still feel you are using the acts of the extremists to castigate Islam as a whole. Not all Muslims are the same. Not all Muslims are violent. . . .

I'll be first to admit that not all Muslims are violent. However, let me assure you that I haven't appealed to extremists activities to castigate Islam as a whole, as you alleged. Please go over carefully again and understand the approach employed in my presentation. Among other things, I have always sought to ask questions and offered references to buttress my persuasions. In contrast,  what you have been posting are hypothetical ideas that may, at best, be misleading to the general reader - some of who may not have the slightest clue on the subject.

goodguy:
Afterall, Saudi Arabia that is predominantly a Muslim nation does not cause unnecessary havoc the way the Iraqis and other Muslim nations do.

I'm not so sure where you're taking this persuasion from; but I'll easily refer you to documented evidence that negate your premise about the Saudi Arabia case. Just one news article confirms that  Saudi Arabia also completely forbids all public non-Muslim religious activities; and excerpts:

"As the State Department has comprehensively documented, the government of Saudi Arabia forbids all demonstration of religious faith that is not consistent with the state-sanctioned interpretation of the Sunni branch of Islam. Shi’a Muslims, who constitute about eight percent of the Saudi population, face severe discrimination in employment and education. Their books are banned, their religious ceremonies discouraged, their most basic rights violated because judges are officially permitted to ignore their testimony in court. Many Shi’a leaders have been imprisoned. One cleric, Sheikh Ahmed Turki al-Saab, was sentenced last year to flogging and 7 years in prison after making comments critical of the government to the Wall Street Journal.

"Saudi Arabia also completely forbids all public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim clergy are prohibited from visiting the country. The distribution of Bibles is banned. Many Christians have been imprisoned or deported for practicing their faith. The Saudi authorities have even punished private religious expression, raiding homes where private worship was taking place and arresting the participants. In one such case reported by the State Department, 2 Filipino Christian residents were sentenced to 30 days in prison, 150 lashes, and deportation in April of 2002 for conducting a Roman Catholic prayer group in their home.

"The Departments Religious Freedom Report is crystal clear in its judgment of Saudi Arabia’s record. It concludes, simply, that “freedom of religion does not exist” in Saudi Arabia. The State Department has been able to make such a categorical statement about only two countries in the world: North Korea and Saudi Arabia."

Well, there it is, and at the risk of almost breaking my promise for brevity. However, I would still have the persuasion that you have not carefully handled the subject you proposed, and have hitherto presented unreal drama sketches that fall far short of the substance of this discussion.

bari_kade and I have been having a civil conversation so far without the use of words like these to refer to ourselves.

I learn everyday and have repented of uncivil mannerisms in discussing issues. I'd like to offer the same to all discussants, and thank everyone for being gentlemanly so far.

Regards.

mrpataki:
I wont be suprised if indeed hes actually a muslim pillaging himself to be a christian.

You may not be far wrong, even though I may still have some persuasion that he could be a Christian. However, believers in Christ would not confess a deity that is antithetical to holiness and righteouness as being the very same God who sent His Son for our salvation.

@chessito,

chessito:
God has been so good to me and i discovered that i has really been partial about me,what some people wont escape when they do it,i escape it!

It doesn't work that, because no one escapes judgement if they don't repent. Some may 'do it' and may not escape; others who 'do it' seem to escape for the moment; but one day everyone will be answerable for their deeds.

II Pet. 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT031csTNcE&mode=related&search=
There are still those who know right from wrong, may the head hunters not see him Amen

I'm amazed at your investigative skills, and want to thank you for that link. Here are some very disturbing issues that caught my attention in that interview with Iraqi Politician Iyad Jamal Al-Din -

Serious Question for Arabic anti-Israel Interests:
#1. "How come Israel is not using the Arabs as a pretext for delaying its democratic development, its free economy and its free press?"

Other Comments:
#2. . . . "we have it all. Nevertheless, we have backward, tyrannical, and dictatorial regimes, and the people readily accept this. There is no real demand for democracy in Arab countries."

#3. "Some people whine about Iraq's natural resources, and about its oil. They say that America has come to plunder Iraq's resources. I ask them: Were Iraq's resources ever yours? Did you ever benefit from these resources?"

#4. Our countries are rich, yet our peoples are poor [sounds like he was making a case for Nigeria? ]

#5. "Islam has various interpretations. Some of these interpretations are completely divorced from humanity, let alone from islam itself. The well-known ideology of accusing others of heresy is an ideology of terrorism."

#6. "Who turned Al-Zarqawi into a criminal murderer? Who?. . . He began to go to the mosque, and the imam got hold of him, and turned him into what he is. . . We face a bloodthirsty religion, or rather, a bloodthirsty interpretation of the religion. This is the truth."

@ goodguy,

goodguy:
I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Every true Christian knows and accepts that. But do the Muslims know? I know they've been told and preached to, but are they convinced? We have to first of all understand that these people do not even know, talkless of accepting. . hence, their denial. It's one thing for me to know something as the truth and deny outrightly. It's another for me to be oblivious of it, and then deny based on my ignorance. I don't believe a merciful God will punish me for the latter.

How do you get people to know something?

If God brings something to your knowledge and you claim ignorance to deny the same, you wait and see how your belief will excuse you.

goodguy:
But you didn't mention them. That spells 'B I A S' to me.

Well taken - and I suppose the fact that you didn't mention the same issues I did in my post, portrays your own B-I-A-S??

goodguy:
My point is that we should not attack another religion based on what they fail to see and accept from our own side. Because clearly, they we do not also accept so many things from their side.

Already dealt with - "attacking" is not the same thing as people asking questions and challenging misconceptions. Trying to "educate and admonish" people is often taken as "attacking" others' religions.

goodguy:

Aiight. And that proves what. . .??

This. . . :

. . . those other worshippers of other gods that do not regard Jesus still believe in ONE Almighty God "up there" that is far more superior to them.

Right. . . and then what? I guess we just simply recognize your point in limbo and stop telling the truth about Christ - the very thing Muslims have always wanted!

@goodguy,

goodguy:
Making inference about Islam merely from the feelings of a Senegalese or some Saudi Arabians does not reflect reality either.

Agreed - that's why I still call for the records in the Books between Christianity and Islam, while seeking to understand Judaism.

goodguy:
Just like the Christians, they don't want their people to convert to another religion. They believe theirs is the only way.-- (But is there really an "only way"? I know Jesus said something concerning that in John 14:6, but where does that leave those that died before Him, and those that never heard of Him, or did not get convinced about the Gospel? Don't you think there's more to that statement than the way we normally interprete it? That's another topic also on its own anyway).

When Jesus categorically stated in John 14:6 that He is the Way and you are questioning that as a Christian, I'll leave you answerable to Him alone.

goodguy:
And they know that allowing Christians to practise their faiths among them will draw people away from Islam.

Now this is where it gets interesting - when Muslims know that Christians practising their faith will draw people away from islam, what has been the response of Muslims to Christians? Contrast that with the response of Christians to those who are drawn to Islam - and why do you think we ask questions about the violent nature of Islam?

goodguy:
Christians naturally have this tendency to convince others to come into their religion because of their peaceful nature, and the Muslims do acknowledge this.

Right. Now again my question: if Christians are disposed to peaceful means, why are Muslims threatening people all over the place?

goodguy:
Each to his own. As far as both serve the same God, there really isn't any need to push beliefs down the other's throat.

This is one more confirmation that you really do not understand Islam. This neutrality you propose does not exist in reality in the Muslim world.

goodguy:
And when one eventually converts into another religion, he/she has to accept the doctrines and and abide by teachings of that religion. We don't know God enough to know the all things He accepts, and those He does not. Our Bible tells us His ways are mysterious. That's why he's God.

First, I don't see any reason why a convert would have to accept and abide by the teachings of Christianity if we don't know God enough to know what He accepts or disapproves. This is quite a convoluted position to assume; and I'm not inclined to take that norminal position as a Christian.

Second, the Christian faith is soundly based on what the Word teaches and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. How many times do we read in Scripture about the deep conviction of knowing God through His Spirit? See a few -

John 7:17 - "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

John 8:32 - "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

John 10:5 - And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 12:50 - "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."

Rom. 8:16 - "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God"

I John 2:21 - "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."

How then can anyone as a Christian claim that we don't know enough of God to know what He accepts?

goodguy:
And have you wondered why? Perhaps he didn't believe them. Perhaps, he found it ridiculous and hard to accept that any man that could have been seen and touched by other mortals should be equated with the Almighty? Perhaps, he found it hard to understand the concept of trinity? Or perhaps, God deliberately chose not to reveal certain secrets to him? Have you ever wondered if God is just trying to prove a point? Have you ever wondered why God does and allows certain things? By the way, I'm just wondering myself. . God is Great!

Your frequent use of perhaps says two things (and I'm not trying to be accusative): (a) you either are trying to euphemise what you might already know for a certainty; (b) you're accusing God of issues that define the lost destiny of billions of souls.

Muhammad clearly denied the claims of Christ - and that is not an issue that can be settled on any "perhaps".

@goodguy,

goodguy:
I had to change the title because you were using it to reason out my so-called motive that you didn't even understand.

Since I didn't want to prejudge your motive, I asked from the very onset.

goodguy:
I expect anyone to read the note that expounds any topic before commenting on the topic at all. You just don't look at the title of a thread and assume to know what the poster talking about.

I made no assumptions - that's why my first entry was a question, after having read your post.

goodguy:
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough. I raised this topic to find out why Christians are so quick to point out acts of war in the Quran, and use that to attack them, accusing their Allah/Mohammad of being violent, when clearly, even in our own Bible, there were enough records of God supporting his people to go fight wars. Get it?

Four issues here:

1. If I investigate the claims of any 'prophet' or religion, questions must be asked - and that is precisely why my question was: what crime did Christians and Jews commit to have merited Muhammad's hatred? If Christians use the violence in Muhammad's career to refute his claims of prophethood, one would expect that Muslim apologists themselves offer sound and sane reasons for any misconceptions to that.

2. When your exercise is focused on wars in the Bible, you fail to clearly delineate between the OT and NT; and as Christians we have often challenged this misconception that the OT wars be blamed on Christianity rather than seeking to understand the basis of Judaism. My very first entry to this thread quoted a line in which you acknowledged Jesus Christ came in peace. Why you think Christians are as bellicose as Muslims simply begs the question.

3. It is not only Christians who are concerned about the spate of violence from the Muslim camp - and the cartoons that sparked Muslim riots in the recent past is just one testimony to the point. The basic question on everyone's lips has been: "why is Islam so violent?" Rather than seek dialogue, Muslims themselves have responded with belligerence, threats to blow up the West (as everything 'western' is Christian in the typical Muslim mindset), more threats to annihilate Israel, and vitriolic blasphemies against the Christian faith. In the face of these, many more people of various faiths and political positions are questioning the violent nature of Islam; so it is not only Christians who are talking about these issues [you might as well want to see this youtube clip offered by babyosis to the point].

4. The violence in Islam is not the only issue that is being debated by Christians. There are many more issues that border on the lifestyle of Muhammad - such as his admission to being a sinner needing to repent seventy times a day; his moral life on women and sex; and his denials of the teaching of Christ. Even when Muhammad's violence is not mentioned, how have Muslims responded to any questioning of these other issues?

These and more are the reasons why I feel up until now you haven't really taken the time to even understand the position of Christians debating issues with Muslims.

goodguy:
And may I remind you that such peaceful ends that we both seek will never be established if we continually attack other people's religion.

I wait to see how your complaint is going to establish peace. What you fail to realise is that before Christians started talking about these issues, Islam already had the deep-seated agenda to annihilate everything "Christian" or "Jewish" - nevermind that atheists and pagans are even worse treated. One of the tenets of Islam expressed as a prophecy is that when Christ returns, He will destroy the Cross and force Christians and others to become Muslims. What you often call "attack" is a complaint that is narrow in perspective and still fails to see the bigger picture.

goodguy:
I believe she stated that due to what she has been experiencing from the hands of the Christians here on Nairaland, who are ever ready to attack her religion. I still believe she was just being sentimental.

Is it only on Nairaland that Christians have refuted the claims of Muhammad and rejected him as a prophet? Again, you really are not demonstrating a full picture of how Islam portrays Christians and Jews. It is clear that mukina[/b]2's one-line statement speaks volumes without sentiments; and until you actually have studied Islam, you will continue to miss the point.

goodguy:
It's easy to sit down over the net and make any claims, just as [b]mukina2 did.

Go beyond the net and delve into the books - a trial will convince you.

goodguy:
Perhaps, Nigerian Muslims are the sensible ones? Okay seriously, I think you're missing the point. These Saudi Arabians believe in the same God that we believe in, but may never accept some Christian claims. They don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, you don't believe Muhammad is a messenger of God. So you see? It's all about what they see that is being attached to the God we both serve. They so much believe in this God and probably love him to bits, that they don't mind killing a fellow human for saying something offensive about Him.

It's remarkable that you'd even mention that Muslims "don't mind killing a fellow human" - and for what? That sounds to me like a choice between a sandwich and a burger - one doesn't mind sometimes between the two. Please, goodguy, we really mind about life, and that's why we celebrate it. It is not a matter to be treated in such cavalier fashion - and Jesus Christ Himself takes the issue seriously:

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service" - John 16:2.

goodguy:
On the other hand, Jesus admonished us to take things easy and allow God do his thing - Something Muhammad probably never did.

It is not a matter of probability - Muhammad simply did not take things easy!

goodguy:
We are not in the position to fight for him -- this is what the Muslims fail to realise. Perhaps, if we could educate and admonish one another on this, rather than attack ourselves, this world will be a much more better place for both Christians and Muslims.

Many times the effort to "educate and admonish" people if regarded as "attacking ourselves." That is why my approach is simply to ask questions instead of prejudging people and issues; offer my persuasions as sanely as possible without the drama of timidity; and pray that people learn something that the Holy Spirit will use in their lives to spark a conviction. I apologise if my presentations fail to reach these ideals; yet I'd appeal that we all get to grips with the truth of Jesus Christ and not treat it as a matter merely of different opinions between Himself and Muhammad.

@davidylan,

You won't believe it, but in our Bible Study last night we were reminded of exactly the same thing you just spoke about! Many people who know the truth about Christ often will look for excuses to play into the hands of deniers of the same truth they seem to profess. The gentleman who led the Bible study added to my vocab by referring to such as 'eristic' - those who are given to disputation for its own sake and often employing specious arguments. He recommended II Tim 2:22-26, and warned that some of us Christians, if not careful, might indeed be in the same cubicle:

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Thanks, davidylan, for yours.