₦airaland Forum

ishaahamed:
the lebanese here always donate blodd on this day .when they are commemorating it.

I don't know how true that is; but I've often heard it said in the past.

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:
I know that guy better. He is a pro at evading responses to questions posed at him!

Don't forget his Masters degree - MIDT!

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
I no fit read big big long long grammar O.
But I must say that I now fully understand SDA doctrine,I had been fooled all along.

Well, me sef I had to learn much, and that is why I can deal with every point our SDA friend (SDA.f) is offering. This explains why the "big big long long grammar." Could I summarize them for you?

SDA.f usually takes Mark 2:27 as the text to support the idea that God commanded Adam to keep the Sabbath. I offered Matt. 12:5 to show that Jesus was referring to the Law. Since this was rejected by SDA.f, I asked for a text in Genesis where Adam was so commanded to observe the Sabbath; his answer was that there was none!

My concern now is that if there is no text in Genesis where Adam was commanded to keep the sabbath,why make other scriptures say what they don't? That's why I offered several questions, because so far SDA.f has been forcing his thoughts into the Bible to say what the Word does not say.

@goodguy,

goodguy:
So, your own reason for believing that Muslims worship a different God is due to the fact that Jesus and Muhammad had differing views on certain issues? Is that it?

Please don't try to amuse me with this simplistic view. Was it only a matter of differing views on certain issues that you read in both the Bible and the Qur'an? So, what are we to do with these "differing views" - pretend that they really don't matter at the end of the day? Sorry but I'm not that politically correct to deny the claims of Christ.

Jesus Christ said He is the Son of God, and that is the basis of our salvation. Muhammad denounces that confession and threatens Christians not to confess the divine sonship of Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus' divine Sonship is the confession that saves and qualifies for heaven; while on the other, Muhammad regarded that confession as the qualification for hell.

You and I, at least, know that there's a great gulf between heaven and hell; are we then to treat these matters as merely "differing views"?? I'm not just about ready to deny the Lordship of my Saviour.

goodguy:
Why have you ruled out these parts of both religions?

1. Both religions beleive there's ONE supreme God that created Heaven and Earth.
2. Both religions believe there's ONE supreme God that is merciful and loving.
3. Both religions believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell.

. . . and so on.

I don't remember ruling them out - do I need to be held accountable for what you didn't read as "ruled out" in my post?

goodguy:
Obviously, these are two different religions. You cannot expect two different religions to have the same views on all issues. It just isn't possible.

Please go back and read my post: I never hinted that it is possible for the two different religions to have the same views. So, what's your point?

goodguy:
Now let's take a look at Yoruba traditions. There are different gods served in Yorubaland. They probably don't even believe in Jesus, even though Ifa worshippers actually regard Jesus. There's a line in one of their incantations that refers to the son of the Virgin Mary and all that. . and they usually seek his help in spiritual matters. But then, 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.

Aiight. And that proves what. . .??

goodguy:
So as we can see, different people see and worship God in different ways, and this is exactly what I mean (okay, gbade. x?).

Right, people see and worship God in different ways - even when Muhammad's view of Jesus was a misconception, as you acknowledged earlier. I get you.

@goodguy,

goodguy:
Why have you deliberately chosen to misinterprete me?  Are you trying to ridicule me by doing this?  Please ask me to explain myself before twisting my posts next time.

I have not deliberately chosen to misrepresent you. Several times I asked you questions, beginning with what your motive was. Your responses were treated in my rejoinders; and where you were not happy with the misleading title, you had to change it.

goodguy:
I started this topic based on the reply I got from the other thread. .  the title was misleading, I agree.  But I expect anyone to understand what this thread is all about from the post that expounded the topic itself.  Unless you didn't read the whole post, then I see no reason for all these "analysis" of my motive.  The new title of this thread says, "God Supported Holy Wars In The Bible".

Okay, now the title has been changed yet again. Was it too much for anyone to ask what your motive was in the first place? If you had issues from a previous thread, was anything wrong with my asking questions in this one?

goodguy:
So I don't know why all these questions about my motive are arising.  I asked someone to explain to me the reason, but no one has done that so far.  Rather, you've deviated from the topic and twisted things to make me look like I'm painting Christianity black, and making Islam appear like the only true religion. That is not my motive, if that's what you're thinking, Sir.

I'm not surprised you rather came to this inference, even though I haven't accused you of anything. Following the development of your original post, I simply wanted to know if you were more concerned about the topic or you had something else in mind! You confirmed that your quest was not about "Holy Wars In The Bible" - which was the original topic. If anyone was to proffer answers to the topic, what would you have made of them?

Not once have I sought to deviate from the topic; and that's why I offered another question about why Muhammad hated Christians and Jews so much. At least, mukina2 offered an answer as a Muslim; and I acknowledged it with thanks without trying to attack her. I hope you saw all that?

goodguy:
And if no one can explain to me why Christians castigate Muslims on that basis, then I see no reason for all these "Your Allah/Muhammad is violent" attacks.

So, which is it - the newly re-edited topic, or why Christians castigate Muslims on the violence purported in Muhammad's career? Nothing inferred here; I just want clear answers so that, at least, I don't fall foul of dealing with the topic when in fact you might have another issue on mind.

goodguy:
And that's why my motive is to call off all these cat and dog fights between Christians and Muslims worldwide, starting from Nairaland.

Ahh - there is the motive! Did I not state something similar in one of my earlier responses? see again:

bari_kade:
I sue for peace as a believer in Jesus Christ; and if my defence of the Old Testement does not help anyone, it still does not portray Jesus Christ as violent.

goodguy:
(By the way, are you aware that Nostradamus prophesied that the third world war will be a fight between Christians and Muslims, and that it's going to be bloodier than the first and second world wars? Whether it's true or not is not the issue now. Let's just strive to prevent any such occurence from happening. Anyway, that's another topic on its own).

I'll leave that until such other topic on its own emerges; and perhaps, that might just go so far to show how deeply seated this issue is between the divide.

goodguy:
So, do you now care enough to attend to my enquiries, or are you still wondering what my motive really is?

I never attacked your motive, and now that you've stated it, I also reminded you that my motives are for peaceful ends.

goodguy:
Perhaps, you're the one not handling issues free from bias.  I still believe mukina2's response was sentimental, because I live around Muslims, and have Muslims friends that will never utter such despicable statements.

And I still believe that mukina2 sincerely stated the obvious without drab or sentimentality.

goodguy:
Muslims I know personally all believe that Christians serve the same God that they serve.  They do not regard Christians as infidels, as mukina2 has made us believe, and as such, her own words should not be taken as the final say.

It's easy to sit down over the net and make such claims. Let's just be practical: goodguy, are you sure if you took your persuasions into Saudi Arabia declaring that that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, they would applaud you? There are more Muslims who are ready to denounce you and whatever you say as a Christian in typically Islamic cultures; so making inference about Islam from merely the feelings of friends does not reflect reality.

goodguy:
It's even far more quizzical that you and some other 'Christians' believe that Muslims worship idols!  That misconception has so much been promoted on this forum, that some peeps don't even know what to believe anymore.  Such misconceptions should be eradicated!

I think all the misconceptions traded across board should be eradicated - including yours. What is left at the end of the day is what people can defend; and those which have not been defended beg answers from Muslims themselves who haven't helped the matter at all.

goodguy:
Did Muhammad actually hate Christians?

I only asked the question: "what crimes have Christians and Jews committed to merit Muhammad's hatred so much?" Expanding this: why are Christians and Jews not free to practice their faiths in Muslim-dominant societies such as Christians provide Muslims in theirs?

As to if Muhammad actually hated Christians, I have many questions regarding that. By the time we begin to take issues individually, perhaps you may get the real picture.

goodguy:
Didn't Muhammad even regard Jesus Christ as a prophet, even though that's a misconception on its own?

So, how do we live peacefully with misconception when the party propagating it is demanding that your views should be erased and his own misconception becomes your new religion? You see, this is exactly why I have been seeking to take this topic by offering questions rather than stating prejudices.

goodguy:
Didn't Muhammad regard prophets in the Bible?  How exactly did he hate the Christians?

It depends on which prophets he regarded in the Bible. Have you noticed that he never mentioned any of the Biblical prophets who confirmed the deity of Jesus Christ, such as Isaiah, Zechariah and Micah? Please check again and let's compare notes on that. Then, we can then begin to understand why Muhammad never had any tolerance for any Christian believing what the Bible states. I'll leave it there for now until we can settle these pressing matters.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
What is the difference between ALLAH and ALLAHU??

You ought to have asked the Muslims who translated their Qur'an using just Allah and not your ALLAH[b]U[/b]!

ishmael:
There is no difference brother, it depends on how you want to pronounce and spell it.

Did I hint anywhere that there was a difference? I think you really have issues confused. The thrust of my responses is to clarify that both you and goodguy are wrong in supposing that Muslims and Christians worship the same God! Please be practical and visit a mosque with the confession before them that the Allah of the Qur'an is the Father of our Jesus Christ. Try persuading them that what they preach in their mosque is nonsense if they deny your confession, and then come back to the Forum to relate your findings.

ishmael:
the muslim man too also believes with faith that GOD called ALLAH in arabic created the heaven and earth in 6 days.

Please read the Qur'an before you make assertions that you can't defend. In other threads, not one Muslim has been able to tell us how many days his or her Allah in the Qur'an created the heaven and earth - anywhere from 4 to 8 days.

ishmael:
Even in christianity the Catholic belief is quite different from that of other denominations; are we going to say that Catholics don't worship the same GOD with Christ Embassy or Redeem or Mountain of Fire??

Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Christ Embassy, and Mountain of Fire all confess the God that is denied in the Bible by Muslims - the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost! It's quite simply a challenge I've offered: please go to any mosque and tell them that the Trinity of the Bible is the same Allah they worship in the Mosque. If they accept that, then you would have made your point.

Let me just say, ishmael, I really don't want to waste time on you until you get your facts right. I'd like this discussion to make a headway if you can buttress your claims with references from the Qur'an, Hadith and the Bible. Failing to do so, it would be simply a futile effort making you see reason. Convince me of your persuasions by taking up my challenge to visit a mosque to tell them what I offered above.

Regards.

@belloti,

belloti:
Barkade, why is your radar solely focus on muslims society? Have you seen the ethnic cleansing of muslims in Bosnia just recently? Ever heard of the rape in Congo? and other atrocities elsewhere. Try being fair next time.

Of course, I was trying to be fair in just precisely the way you arrogated the likes of "back up dancers for Snoop or 50 cents. . . Madonna . . . and Angelina Jolie" had anything to do with Christianity. How is it that when you make for an open-air obsequiousness, then it becomes tyrannical to apply the same rules to your case?

@Bobbyaf,

Here's the rest of my rejoinder:

Bobbyaf:
There were different categories of christians in the temples. Some new converts were being misled by some jewish christians, albeit misled ones, who insisted on their keeping Moses' law of circumcision. Paul on his journey simply saught to enlighten them on the real essence of salvation. The Pauline letters remind us of that reality.

Question #9: where in those verses did it say that there were "different categories of christians"? According to you, what different categories of christians exist in the Bible?

Bobbyaf:
Well, put it this way He cleared up the issue with them, just lik ehow I am clearing it up with you now.

Pity, you really must have a smile for "clearing it up" when you have not been able to provide a verse in Genesis!

Bobbyaf:
Even though I addressed them all I will again.

Start with the verse in Genesis for Adam being commanded to keep the Sabbath; then please try and provide answers to the number of questions in my rejoinder.

Bobbyaf:
"The sabbath was made for man" clause signifies that the sabbath was made for man's benefit. It was a day for man to reflect on God's act of creatorship, without having to think about mundane matters. Such resting provided relaxation and re-creation.

Well, if that is how you interpret the first clause (and thanks for the attempt this time), then new questions rise to the fore:

Question #10: If the Sabbath was meant as a day for man to reflect "without having to think about mundane matters", is it okay for man to think about mundane matters on other days of the week? If you can define the term, what 'mundane matters' are excluded in our thoughts that could be expressed on any other days of the week?

Question #11: What verse did you get the idea that "such resting provided relaxation and re-creation" (or, recreation)? Whichever one, as such "recreation" was provided in the resting of the Sabbath, would the SDA admit that they cannot condemn others who enjoy their own "recreation" like AC-Milan and the football fiesta?

Bobbyaf:
Cannot address # 3 because there is no such clause.

I won't bother you for now, but will offer you my views later on that.

Bobbyaf:
The significance of clause 4 has to do with the fact that man was not made after the sabbath, but before it was instituted. Adam was made on the 6th day, while the sabbath was made on the 7th day. The expression "made for" suggest purpose. Anything that is made for somehing else must have a purpose. In other words one cannot put the cart before the horse, and that is exactly what Christ had in mind when He clarified matters with those misled jewish leaders. . .Man cannot serve the sabbath, but the sabbath was made to serve the needs of all mankind according to Jesus.

I would have to cut in here, because there's a very polarized interpretation you're bring up in this. If the expression "made for" suggests purpose, then check out the meaning of the same expression in I Tim. 1:9 - "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers."

Applying the same rule of thought, if clause #4 ('man was not made for the Sabbath') was saying that "Man cannot serve the sabbath"; then in the same vein one might say that, "a righteous man cannot serve the law" since the Bible says that "the law is not made for a righteous man!"

The moment you begin to make inferences that are wide of the berth, you immediately see it cannot stand up to proper context for which until now you still have no verse in support of God commanding Adam to keep the Sabbath!

Bobbyaf:
The essence of the sabbath is resting from one's own labour or work. The 4th commandment makes it clear.

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!

Bobbyaf:
How could I when there was none! But as I said Mark 2:27 took care of that, unless of course Adam wasn't a man!

Great! So you admit that there in no verse whatsoever for your Adam-sabbath agenda; and yet you disregard the context in Mark 2:27 as referring to the Law as revealed in Matt. 12:5!


Dealing with I Cor. 16 and Acts.

Bobbyaf:
There is no indication that the individual even need to leave home to do this, but rather that the entire process was to be done at home.

How do you deny something and then applaud the very same thing you just denied. Since you admit that there is no indication that people had to leave home, what indication exist in that chapter that the entire process was to be done at home? Where is it stated so?

Bobbyaf, do you obey that very verse yourself as you interpreted?

Bobbyaf:
It is also clear from the book of Acts, that Paul kept only the Sabbath day in Corinth, and not Sunday:
Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Again, I notice you skipped verses inbetween and missed the group of people Paul was speaking to:
Acts 18:5 - "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." If these were already Christians, how could Paul have been wasting time and effort testifying to people who already knew that Jesus is the Christ? That message (that Jesus is Christ) is what an evangelist preaches to non-Christians in order to bring them to the Saviour!

The fact that they were not already Christians is shown in verse 6 by their reaction - they opposed themselves and blasphemed! Is that what the Bible teaches that true Christians do? You again purposely skipped verse 8 that shows the result of these non-Christian Jews becoming converts to the faith: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." You make these these mistakes because you can't see anything in Scripture other than the word "Sabbath!"

Bobbyaf:
That's 72 Sabbaths that Paul preached in Corinth. There can be no question that Paul raised up a Sabbath keeping church in Corinth, a church that knew nothing of observing Sunday as a holy day.

I notice that the same Paul was afraid for the Galatians because they were observing "days, and months, and times, and years" (Gal. 4:10). The same Paul was cautioning the Colossians about not letting anyone judge them "in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Col. 2:16). I don't see Paul applauding the Sabbath in Corinthian while discouraging it in other places.

Bobbyaf:
So, while many will point to 1 Corinthians 16:2 in the light of Tradition, and say that it refers to passing the collection plate during a Sunday service, in context, that is simply not indicated by the text.

Neither was your summation indicated by the text.

Bobbyaf:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Clearly the disciples are meeting on Sunday, the first day of the week. It might even be presumed by some that by "breaking bread" they celebrated the Lord's supper that Sunday.

You know, I don't know why you could admit that the disciples were clearly meeting on Sunday! So, at least, there you have it that Christians actually met on Sunday even in the first century!! This practice was on for several decades, and historians closer to that age actually recorded the fact!

Bobbyaf:
The question that needs to be asked though, is why were the disciples assembled on this day? What reason brought them together? In context, it will be seen that Paul was departing the next day on his journey to Jerusalem to be present during the Pentecost festival (v. 16). This gathering was a farewell assembly with Paul, the last day the people at Troas could meet with him, and that is why it lasted into the early morning hours. In fact Paul talked with them all through the night and then left in the morning at sunrise (v. 11).

So, what was the reason for the disciples coming together on that Sunday in that verse? If you read it again, it clearly was not about coming together to hear Paul; rather, they gathered together for the express purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper- verse 7 [when the disciples came together to break bread]. Paul only used the occasion to preach to them, since he was hoping to depart the next day.

Bobbyaf:
Perhaps, yet even if they did, as some maintain, there is no indication that that Sunday, or any Sunday, was being observed as a newly instituted weekly holy day to commemorate the resurrection.

I haven't seen any Scripture indicating that the Saturday was being observed as an instituted weekly holy day to commemorate the resurrection either. Do you have any text to that effect?

Bobbyaf:
The breaking of bread did not indicate a special day of worship,

I don't think anyone said that the breaking of bread indicated "a special day of worship". The Scriptures show that the breaking of bread was rather a declaration of the Lord's death till He come - I Cor. 11:26.

Bobbyaf:
or even that the Lord's supper was being celebrated, as scripture tells us they met daily and broke bread from house to house

What are you getting at, Bobbyaf? Was breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 any different from the Lord's Supper in I Cor. 11:20 & 26?

Bobbyaf:
This first day in question was simply a Saturday night that was to the Jews the first day of the week. Jewish time reckoning was totally different than ours today. According to scriptures a day begins at sunset and ends at sunset., and not at 12am. Since the sabbath ended at sunset, then the dark portion of the day would automatically become Sunday which would have been the dark portion. This explains why Paul preached until sunrise of the same Sunday which we would refer to as Sunday morning.

So, if the first day in question was simply a Saturday night, you were being disingenuous earlier when you admitted that the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 was a Sunday! You don't seem to make sense by this back and forth arguments that are neither here nor there. Besides, if the first day of the week was simply a Saturday night, whatever happened to your seventh day of the week that you've been bantering all along? Your calculations would now mean that the seventh day of the week was actually a Friday night, and not a saturday at all! In that case, Bobbyaf, let's add two more questions:

Question #13: do you gather for church services in SDA on Saturday nights?

Question #14: if your seventh day meant Saturday, then what calculations are you trying to manipulate for sunset Saturday as the Sabbath day? Should I take it that as a sabbath keeper, you actually refer to a normal Monday morning in the office as a Monday night?

Bobbyaf:
There is noting definitive about those two texts. Sorry bari_kade you'll have to do better than accuse me of not being contextual, yet taking these very same texts way off base.

That's simply because you have your calculations confused at the moment; and when you have attempted the questions in my rejoinder, then I'll show just how you missed the context in Scripture.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Your latest response only confirms this: you have a problem reading the Bible in context and still have no basis for most of your beliefs.

1. You still had no text where God commanded Adam to keep the Sabbath. Even when pointed to the context in Mark 2:27, you still have been unable to make a reference to a verse in Genesis or in the OT where Jesus inferred that Adam was commanded by God to keep the Sabbath. If it was not enough for you to see the context by comparing Mark 2:27 with the parallel verses in Matthew 12 (especially vs. 5), then I take it you're giving a private interpretation to verses - something we are warned against in II Pet. 1:20.

2. I asked a question repeatedly about HOW the Sabbath was stipulated to be kept/observed, in hope that you had something to say. Here's a cavalier response you offered:

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

. . . and yours:

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

You're again confirming that most SDA members do not even know the stipulations for observing the Sabbath in the Bible; and when asked, they'll tell you they are not aware! Would it be too much to appeal that you take the time to check the Bible for this, and not assume you already know that much about the Sabbath?



Now, others. Did you try to evade the sense of this:

Bobbyaf:
Christ and His disciples walked through the cornfields, but He certainly didn't tell them to pick the ears of the corn. They did it for whatever reason, but Christ was accused by the jewish leaders.

First, you didn't carefully read the texts that stated the reason for the disciples plucking corn to eat in the fields: they were hungry (Matt. 12:1)! I expected you should've clearly stated it and not treat it as "for whatever reason". Second, Christ was well aware what the disciples were doing, and they acted according to the Law (Deut. 23:25)! You surely could have done better than that!

Bobbyaf:
As to whether Christ did good works on the sabbath so as to prove He kept it is pointless to whether the sabbath was kept by Him.

That being the case, how come you're pushing such a pointless agenda about Christ keeping the Sabbath?

Bobbyaf:
The fact is there is nothing that He did on the day that would have been considered worthy of sabbath breaking, since there is no law against doing good on the sabbath.

That is why I have always asked you to carefully read the Bible and provide for us HOW God stipulated that the Sabbth was to be observed. If this cavalier way you treat the issue of the Sabbath stands at all, then I guess everyone and anyone can just about choose their own way of observing the sabbath; and it would be pointless indeed for you or any SDA to find fault with it.

Bobbyaf:
He never had to impose the sabbath because it was already being kept, even if those who kept it didn't fully understand the spiritual implications of it. The fact is by the time Christ came the jewish leaders had obscured the true meaning of God's law by their traditions. So, when Christ came part of His job was to bring back the true purpose of the sabbath as he did in one occasion in Mark 2:27. You may have noticed that at no time did Christ denounce the sabbath, but made sure to correct any mis-representation concerning it.

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?

Bobbyaf:
Thats becasue they had lost the true meaning of what is involved with sabbath keeping.

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??

Bobbyaf:
Listen to what Jesus said of their tradition and the ensuing results;

Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Question #4: What is meant by the "weightier matters of the Law"?

Question #5: What Law was Christ speaking about in that verse?

Bobbyaf:
What do you gather from the above texts? Christ recognised the importance of the law as well as the sabbath. He also recognised what it meant to those mistaken leaders as well.

Question #6: Where in Matt. 23:23 did Christ make mention of the Sabbath?

Bobbyaf:
Yes I believe so. If Jesus or Paul knew that the sabbath was no longer relevant, they would have made it clear. It was Jesus who said the following in Matthew 5: 18,19, 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Question #7: What Law and commandments was Jesus referring to in Matt. 5:18-19.

Bobbyaf:
So here we see that Christ had to be faithful as an exemplar, in both keeping the law, as well as admonish all to follow suit untill all be fulfilled. Hence because the sabbath is a central part of the 10 commandments I have reason to believe that He kept it and gave no authority to any of His disciples to annul any. Likewise Paul had to have kept the sabbath since there was no reason for him not to.

Question #8: So, the Sabbath you are referring to was not based on Genesis but the 10 commandments in Exodus? And therefore, was Adam expressly given the 10 commandments that came several centuries after he died? How do you apply the 10 commandments to Adam, if we are to follow you "implied" interpretation?

@gbade.x,

I'm waiting to see the next lie he devices for that question; and if you dare refute it, watch out for his self-inflicted curses!

@ishmael,

Let's revisit your QED.

ishmael:
@Bari_kade
it is people like you that makes it look as if the God of the Christians is different from the God of the muslims.

Guilty as charged, except that I'm not one of those people "that makes it look as if" what you're charging is true.

ishmael:
If you are well learned in arabic language and was asked to translate the word of GOD in the Bible for Arabs to read and understand, what would be your translation for the word "GOD" in arabic?? Will it not be ALLAHU?? . . . in arabic please, GOD is ALLAHU.

I'm not a translator of the Qur'an, never have been, and never will be. If your allegations put me in the dock, no worries - just that you have rubbished the translations given by Muslims themselves who use "Allah" and not "ALLAH[b]U[/b]"! Therefore, please recommend to Muslims reading your post that Ali Yussuf, Pickthal and Shakir among others have rubbished the Qur'an by using 'Allah' instead of your own 'ALLAH[b]U[/b]!'

ishmael:
There is no difference between the GOD of the Bible and the GOD (ALLAH) of the Qu'ran. With all these nonsense you people are propagating and spreading about GOD and ALLAHU there will never be harmony and peace in this world. Muslims and Christians worship the same GOD.

If you don't see any difference between God in the Christian faith and Allah (or your ALLAH[b]U[/b]) in Islam, I really don't have any fusses about your vehemence to regard other people's opinions as "all these nonsense." I have only just asked questions in an attempt to progress the discussion; and all of a sudden my feet are held to the fire as it were.

Perhaps you could oblige me a few more questions: Is the God in the Bible (encompassing Christianity and Judaism) and the Allah or your ALLAH[b]U[/b] in the Qur'an the same Being? A few observations:

1. Jesus Christ in the NT urges Christians to love their enemies;
Muhammad in the Qur'an urges Muslims to ambush and slay them!

2. Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the Son of God and 'God' as His Father;
Muhammad categorically denied that claim in the Qur'an.

3. Jesus Christ confirmed that He died and rose again for salvation of people;
Muhammad denied the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in the Qur'an.

4. Jesus Christ declared Himself as the Alpha and Omega in Revelation;
Muhammad qualifies Jesus as no more than a slave to Allah in the Qur'an.

5. Jesus Christ confirmed that He was the One Moses wrote about in the Law;
Muhammad denied this and appointed himself as the one Moses wrote about.

There are dozens more to the point; but would you still say in your QED that Jesus in the NT did not know what He was preaching, and only was saying the same thing as Muhammad? I don't mind "all these nonsense" in your rejoinder to my questions; but incase you missed the point, I leave you with Jesus' own words in John 3:3 -

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

@babs787,

babs787:
@barikade,
'ipako o gbo suti, ori elegan lo baje'
- - -
really. maybe you bring me proof in which i mocked any prophet. if you levelled allegations against me mocking jesus in the bible, you don't need to be angry at me, you should rather be towards your bible because i brought it from your bible.

It's not surprising that they call you blabs because you can't see, read, or comprehend! I'm not angry at you (is that another issue you can't see, read or understand??); rather, my concern is that even when your lies have been eruditely debunked by shahan quoting the very verses you used, your blabbing hasn't been cured! Keep blabbing. . . and don't forget to keep cursing yourself (its effect is actually working on you!).

babs787:
and my friend where have you been when your cohorts have been saying all sorts of blasphemy against my prophet.

I've been around simply reading the posts and checking the points made from the Qur'an and the Hadith. So far, all the quotes were confirmed and are still there in your holy books, even if no comments were made. If you felt that these quotes about your prophet were lies, I'm still asking who is lying - you, or the Qur'an and the Hadith? You may be angst about the things said concerning Muhammad; but what I'm interested in is simply if these things are actually true as recorded in the Qur'an and the Hadith.

babs787:
ok,babs is still a liar despite the fact that he brought out contradictions from your bible. the curse is still hanging on liars

"Okay, babs is still a liar" - as you have just confirmed - and the curse is still hanging on liars like babs who cursed himself. So far, I haven't read anyone else pronouncing curses on anyone as you did (pardon me if I missed the link); but my concern is: why did you curse yourself at all?

babs787:
have you been noticing plagiarism in the bible. who copied who? (thatwill be later when the above is addressed).

We might just as well be ready to notice the "plagiarism" in the Qur'an.

babs787:
in addition, the foundation of christianity is on 'the crucifixtion or crucifiction of jesus christ.if there is no crucifiction, there is no resurrection and where there is no resurrection, there is no christianity.

Granted; and the case of the crucifixion (that's the spelling) has been well established. That is why there was a resurrection - and there is a resurrection.

babs787:
we muslims believe that he wasnt killed nor crucified and i stand by that too.(ve even given you part of the contradictions therein). so if you go against that, the door is wide opened.

Okay, whatever you muslims believe about Jesus being crucified or not. The door is wide open - for more of your lies?

babs787:
lastly, if you do not stop infringing on muslims faith, babs will never relent in exposing the fraud therein.

No, no, no. . . and no! Just simply come back and correct your English, because you've just stated that if people "do not stop infringing on muslims faith, babs will never relent in exposing the fraud therein (i.e., muslim faith!)." I hope your lies are not confusing your English to help you admit that there are fraud in "muslim faith" which you will never relent in exposing?? I thought you knew your tenses well enough to advise on Deuteronomy??

babs787:
good luck

Okay O. . . happy chance as well.

@belloti,

From all the texts in the Qur'an and the Hadith already posted on the Forum, could you really get carried away by the obsequious statement you just made about Muhammad being a "nice gentleman who has never hurt anyone"??

@batu,

batu:
@bari-kade,
Well, you possibly heard right, but those you heard it from were probably want to-be cultist who were just showing off. It means "silence", so you don't "hear" it; you either "see" it or "feel" it.

I agree; the term was usually bantered around by cult wannabes, and we didn't quite take them seriously as they sounded convoluted in the sense that a "declaration" was meant to be a "silence"! I admit I didn't actually know the meaning until now, but it was something we heard quite often on campus; and some of us silly ones initially attributed it to kegites!

@belloti,

The ladies you see on MTV and others who shamelessly parade themselves have nothing to do with Christianity. Even in Madonna's case, her brazen ridicule of the Cross testifies to her anti-Christian stance; and I'm sure if she or anyone else attempts/attempted something like that about Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad, you guys would have shown her how secure she is - by hunting for her head!

I'm deeply concerned about the plight of Muslim women in Afghanistan who are daily exposed to inhumane treatment from Muslim men! Pakistan is no better as a Muslim society where Muslim women are raped and still have to be punished by the Islamic law! These are not isolated cases outside Islam; and I haven't seen you address those situations that spell reality in typical Muslim cultures.

@belloti,

belloti:
i tell you striking resemblance abound betwen cults and many other
facets of life, particularly in christianity. Okija shrine is almost 100% composed of christian membership, same goes to Ogboni, Eiye, [/b], etc. may be its just coincidental.

Should I assume that your statement above is mere ranting, or because you know the facts? I don't know much about all cults and would not want to pretend knowledge on some of them; however, if you're contrasting [b]cults and christianity with the allusion to , those who know the facts will see you're being mischievous. At least, I know first hand the issues surrounding - and I know this much that their members never contrast themselves or activities to Christianity.

On the other hand, if your concern is about the "Christian" membership in the cults you mentioned, then I can assure that I knew whole loads of Muslims who were members of back in my university days.

belloti:
Islam is something you all see as a threat and therefore should be condemn and blacklisted. but you only have access to internet forums to vent your irrelevant angers with so much futility. The best thing for you is to go back to school of theology and learn more about the glorious religion of Islam and see where you missed the point.

Cogent answers are still lacking as to why Islam today is a threat globally. Beyond the internet, why is it that no other group than Muslims are at the core of terrorism especially in Europe? Which group is responsible for the spate of bombings in the UK, and still furthering those threats to security? Theology or none, why is it that no other group of people than Muslims have pledged themselves to annihilate Israel?

@goodguy,

It doesn't seem that you had an amicable motive for this topic ab initio. First it was something about the topic; then it was not the topic; and now, because the topic itself was misleading, it has become "the note expounding the topic itself". The chord that resonates in your exercise becomes all the more askant in view of your reference to the point that Jesus Christ. . .

goodguy:
. . . came to preach and establish peace among mankind, and even admonished us to turn the other cheek when wronged.

That said, I'm still asking the question: "What crime did Christians and Jews commit for Muhammad to have hated them so much?" I shouldn't doubt your being a Christian or Muslim; but if we have a sound basis for deliberating on this issue and progressing the discussion, you would have to agree that ishmael's opinion falls far short of the reality on the ground.

Now, when you stated you believe that. . .

goodguy:
. . .mukina2's response is plain sentimental.

. . .you're again not handling issues free from bias. I believe that mukina2 was stating the obvious as a Muslim (and my response to hers should demonstrate that I have no bones to pick with her). She was not throwing words wildly into the air, for what she stated is clearly a tenet of Islam. My question there was as to if her response helped your enquiry and your stated aim/motive? Muslims are not confused as to who the Qur'an refers to as infidels, so it really begs the proposal that we attempt a redefinition of what Muhammad meant by the term. In this instance, perhaps mamaput's interjection is well applicable:

mamaput:
You forgot to ask her who are the people of the book , her holy bookreferes her to

It's even more quizzical that you and ishmael take the view that Christians and Muslims worship the same God! That misconception has been severally thrashed in other threads, and you'd only need to calmly gather your facts before pushing such an idea.

May I ask again: what crime have Christians and Jews committed to merit Muhammad's unbridled hatred against them, especially when you admit that Jesus Christ came to preach peace?

kellorah:
all these long things u lot keep typing
there's no one true church
ure pastor can preach all he wants, that doesnt mean ure definitely a believer.
it's wot's in your heart that counts
we'll c for ourselves on d last day as all churches claim monopoly of the truth especially, sects!

No wahala. No one is obliged to read what they don't want to.

@Seun,

Seun:
If God wants to brutally wipe out innocent women, slaves and babies, why not? God has every right to be wicked!!

You've rightly captured Islam in a nutshell, I suppose.

Question still remains: what crime did Christians and Jews commit for Muhammad to have hated them so much?

@goodguy,

1.

goodguy:
My quest is not about "Holy Wars In The Bible" as you've stated.

2.

goodguy:
Guys, I just need some clarification on this.

. . . clarification on what - the topic, or something else?

So, I take it that if your quest is not about "Holy Wars In The Bible", your topic is misleading?

Besides, there are other issues that are clearly fundamental to the supposed quest you've now stated about:

goodguy:
My quest, rather, is to find out why Christians usually base their attacks against Muslims and "their Allah" on the wars they faught against unbelievers,

Even then, goodguy, it appears that you really don't have a firm grasp on the gist of the so-called quest you postulate. Wars and violence in Islam not withstanding, the basic question still remains: what crime did Christians and Jews commit for Muhammad to have hated them so much?

mrpataki:
@ batu,
Please could you give us a link to your citations above.

Me, I no know if links exist for 'omata declarations'. I only heard of the term in aluta days in university among cult members on campus. As for the equation, I don't know if Islam translates into Demonic secret cults. Just curious, though.

goodguy:
Hmmm. . a nice attempt there to make the Muslims appear guilty of war crimes. But isn't God Himself, a man of war?

Well, following on your link (a man of war. . . or, Holy Wars In The Bible ), it is interesting how dramatic things are shaping up.

mukina2:
you are infidels . refusing to accept Allah and Muhammad as his messenger

Okay, at least, that is just one among several others. Thanks.



Now, @goodguy, does this help your enquiry and your stated aim to . . .

goodguy:
. . . bring an end to unnecessary disputes between Christians and Muslims.  But honestly, I need someone to clarify these things to me.  I'm really willing to learn and probably have my views changed.

??

mrpataki:
When is the world coming to an end

Hehehe. . . even without reading the username, I could've guessed with one eye that this must come from mrpataki!!

@goodguy & mamaput,

I asked that question out of curiosity, and also out of an inquisitiveness to learn about my faith as a Christian. That is why I referenced the line quoted in advance, on the recognition that we can have a good start that Jesus came in peace:

goodguy:
I know Jesus came and abolished such acts of war.  He came to preach and establish peace among mankind, and even admonished us to turn the other cheek when wronged.

It is quite interesting that your quest about "Holy Wars In The Bible" was aimed at bringing. . .

goodguy:
. . .an end to unnecessary disputes between Christians and Muslims. .

Perhaps something is awry in the stated motive which does not reflect the quest for answers in the stated query. I sue for peace as a believer in Jesus Christ; and if my defence of the Old Testement does not help anyone, it still does not portray Jesus Christ as violent.

The question that is central in my mind to all this is: why did Muhammad hate Christians and Jews - what is our crime??

@fadenike,

Do Muslims need to curse and lie against Jesus in order to defend Muhammad and Islam?

@goodguy,

goodguy:
I know Jesus came and abolished such acts of war. He came to preach and establish peace among mankind, and even admonished us to turn the other cheek when wronged.

What really is your motive? I'm just curious.

I won't claim to hold conference for shahan or anyone here; but it would rather be best to leave blabs-787 to his pranks.

babs787:
my efforts here is . . .certainly not to mock jesus (be upon him) and his teachings. (Allah forbids). The intent is obviously to point out that false charges, misrepresentations, lies, frauds against Allah and his prophets, are in themselves derisive and constitute disbelief.

Not surprising - there are many typical Muslims who speak with both sides of their mouth. While pretending they never mock/insult any prophet, they actually do - and then will turn again and lie publicly that they never did!

babs787:
. . .we will see who the real liar is and who needs doctor.

. . .stay hooked on readers and see the real liars

We've seen the real liar in action - babs787, and so far none of his doctors have been able to cure him! More than that, he has cursed himself for his vexed lies!

Well, it's interesting to read the various persuasions on this somewhat touchy issue.

@TV01,

TV01:
Bari Kade don't run O! Talk never finish! We will conclude at the end, not midterm (sorry politicos ) midway!

If for argument sake you want to run a race-course and be headmaster, no wahala! You have your reasons why CP/Xtity/XP. . . or whatever else, is a plague in the Christian faith, as much as everyone else have theirs for applauding it. At the end of the day, no one may have made sense to you; and in my mind it is very doubtful that your arguements have served a good persuasion across board (just my opinion, however disagreeable you may be to that).

Let me tersely say that Christians in political vocations play an important role in influencing legislations that reflect godliness against the backdrop of ungodly agenda. If this is idolatory or witchcraft, I'd rather let God be the judge, and not the passive spectators who cry foul at this vital exercise.

@TayoD,

TayoD:
@TV01,Do you have another hidden agenda? The underlying question of this thread is: Can Christians participate in politics? Here's a summary of people's responses:
TV01 - Yes with conditions
TayoD - yes with conditions
mrpataki - Yes with conditions
Analytical - Yes with conditions
bari_kade - yes with conditions

Shouldn't we then put in a Q.E.D. to the topic? Or arent everybody's views pellucid enough?

Brilliant - and thanks. QED.

Regards to all.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Jesus' custom was to keep the sabbath, "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16

"As His custom was" - what was His custom: going into the synagogue, or keeping the Sabbath? Do not mix up the two. Jesus also did several other things on the Sabbath: (1). He went into the corn field with His disciples and they plucked corn and rubbed them in their hands - Luke 6:1; (2). He healed the sick and asked the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath - John 5:8-11. Now, can I ask you if it was also His custom to do these things on the Sabbath day in order to prove that He was keeping it? Was it Jesus' custom to keep the Sabbath by going through the corn fields and asking a man to carry his bed - just to prove that He kept the Sabbath?

The answer is obvious. He did not come to impose the law of the Sabbath on those whom He came to call and save - and for this reason, He was often seen doing the very things that were not stipulated as part of keeping the Sabbath. In John 5:18 and 9:16, the Jews may have many problems, but they recognised that Jesus was not keeping the Sabbath in consonance with the stipulations of the Mosaic Law. The fact that He declared who He was - Lord of the Sabbath - explains His actions.

This is why I keep asking, if you think anywhere you see "Sabbath" in the NT, it is to be assumed that Jesus and the apostles were observing the Sabbath, then you really will miss the point - and I presume that is even more the reason why you haven't been able to answer my questions in the several rejoinders you posted.

Bobbyaf:
The apostle Paul kept the sabbath also, And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2.

I beg you, Bobbyaf, just as above - read the context of verses you quote! What was Paul doing in the synagogue of the Jews on the Sabbath days - keeping the sabbath, or reasoning with the Jews?? If this is difficult for you, then solve the problem by simply asking these questions:

(a) HOW did the Scripture command that the Sabbath be kept or observed?
(b) who were the Jews with whom Paul was reasoning out of the Scriptures in Acts 17:1-2 - Christians or Judaics?

If you think paul was speaking to a "Christian" crowd in those texts, then your dilemma will be verse 4 - where some of them "some of them believed", which tells us that Paul was speaking to non-Christians and persuading them to believe in Jesus Christ so that they might be saved (carefully read verses 3-4 again). How could he have been reasoning with the Jews to persuade them to be saved if they were already Christians?

Bobbyaf:
Bear in mind that as Paul travelled he preached. In this instance he stayed in that area and preached on three different sabbaths to the people. There is no record of paul preaching to a church on Sunday as a custom. The argument that is given is that Paul just happened to be preaching to the people because they were jews, and that they worshipped on the sabbath, leaving Paul no recource but to be in those temples.

As explained above, was Paul preaching to Christians in those temples?? Do you read verses out of context??

Bobbyaf:
Paul and his entourage kept the sabbath under the open canopy of heaven, "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.

Bobbyaf, was Paul and his entourage keeping the sabbath with Christians in Acts 16:13?? If that were the case, are you trying to say that Lydia was already a Christian? If she was already a Christian, then it would be a very queer interpretation you have for verse 15 where it says she was baptized only after the Lord had opened her heart to attend to Paul's preaching! The Bible did not refer to those women in Acts 16:13 as "Christians" before Paul preached to them; so I urge that you carefully read verses contextually before you draw conclusions.

Bobbyaf:
So even in nature Paul and his friends kept the sabbath. Ever wondered why the sabbath keeps coming up? If this were another day would the bible have stressed it? Besides, there is still no indication of Paul even remotely addresssing the supposedly new Lord's day. Isn't it strange that something as important as that was not emphasised in the NT?

The emphasis of the sabbath being mentioned in the NT is missed by many who fail to see to whom it applied. Secondly, you must have missed the subject of Paul addressing the Corinthians on what day they gathered for worship. I agree with lafile's post who stated that there was NT command to keep Sunday as a worship day; and I might add that any such command to keep Saturday does not exist in the NT!

Bobbyaf:
"Paul and his company , went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14.
Still no mention of Sunday.
"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

As above, read the text in their contexts - were those Jews already Christians in Acts 13:13-14 and 18:4? If they were already Christians in those instances, then what was the need of persuading "Christians" of what they already knew for themselves - that Jesus is the Christ who alone saves?? In Acts 18:8, we read the result of Paul's preaching to these Jews who were not as yet Christians in verse 4 that you quoted: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." If these were already Christians in verse 4, are we to assume that in your summation, they were some queer type of "Christians" who did not believe and were not baptized until after Paul's preaching? Please, please, and please. . . read the contexts before drawing conclusions you can't defend.

Bobbyaf:
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44

As above - were these people already CHRISTIANS?? How come you always stop in verse 44 and fail to see the results in verse 48?? Here: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." They were not Christians in verse 44; but after receiving the word and believing in verse 48!

Bobbyaf:
This text makes it absolutely clear that the gentiles begged Paul to come back with the same message the next sabbath. These gentles were perhaps new converts. Those words were definitely not about keeping Sunday I'd imagine, would they?

Neither were they about keeping sabbath! Now it is interesting that you intoned that these gentiles were "perhaps new converts"! I assure that the Word of God does not rest on probability and guesses; and I've explained the case of these Gentiles just above!

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade while you ask me to provide a direct scriptural command from Genesis for Adam to have kept God's sabbath, I now ask you to provide a scriptural command for keeping Sunday.

Interestingly enough, you failed to provide a direct command for Adam in the entire Bible. As for Sunday (commonly called 'the first day of the week'), I don't remember ever stating that there was a direct command for any particular day: at least, I made clear that lafile's post has my vote on that. However, please see how the Bible indicated when Christians gathered for Christian worship in the following:

Acts. 20:7 - "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

I Cor. 16:2 - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

I'm enjoying the calm in our exchanges; and perhaps, just perhaps, you might help yourself (and other readers) in this discussion if we simply follow the reasoning in Scripture than what is perculiar to any denomination.

Bobbyaf:
Re the command for Adam to keep the sabbath. You won't find a command as such, but it is implied. Setting aside a day that is holy automatically implies rest. Other NT verses give support to this rest as was exemplified by God Himself.

I'm glad you can admit that not even you can find "a command as such" concerning Adam keeping the Sabbath! And what is not expressing stated in Adam's case as a Law/command is no where implied. If other NT verses speak on the subject, we still need to understand the context of such texts where the Sabbath is treated.

Bobbyaf:
The whole matter becomes that much clearer when you understand the purpose of the sabbath. From the beginning it was given for the purpose of rest from man's labour. God gave mankind 6 days in which to do work, but it was expected of him to rest and re-create in holy communion and reflection. That day was dedicated to spiritual reflection, which was not to be distracted with mundane matters.

Interesting how you can draw this conclusion when you know that God did not command Adam anywhere to keep the Sabbath. Just one question here: [#1] If God ever gave a law of Sabbath keeping to Adam, what provisions were made to him about HOW he was to observe it?

Bobbyaf:
What was implied in Genesis 2 is explained in Mark 2:27, That is why the scripture says, "line upon line, " Hence I believe that Jesus was not necesssarily dealing with the Jewish sabbath in his discourse, but hinted at the general purpose of the sabbath as it related to all of mankind, and that is why He used the phrase "man", or in this case mankind, rather than the jews.

This takes us back to what has already been discussed. Read the whole context of Mark 2:27 (from verse 23 to 28 inclusive) and compare with the synoptic Gospels. It is very clear that the Lord Jesus did not refer to Genesis in His response, but rather to the Law given to the Jews. Let's compare with the synoptic Gospels - Matthew 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5.

It is interesting that when the Lord Jesus answered the same query of the Jews in Matthew 12, He specifically made clear the basis of His answer was not from Genesis, but rather from the Law of Moses: "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?" (verse 5). Did you catch that - the Lord Jesus specifically mentioned nothing about Genesis, but directed His enquirers to what was written in the Law!

Whenever the Lord Jesus wanted to make a statement based on Genesis, He clearly indicated this - and any reader can readily see the reference. For example, when dealing with the question of divorce, the Jews based their question on the law of Moses (as often they did). Hear them: ". . .Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" And His answer? "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:7-8 ). The Lord Jesus made it crystal clear on what basis He established His answers, and anyone can see He took them back to Genesis.

Compare the above with Mark 10:1-9 concerning the same incident. The first thing the Lord Jesus asked the Pharisees was: "What did Moses command you?" (vs. 3). After they had stated their case on the Mosaic Law in vs. 4 (compare with Deut. 24:1-4), the Lord then took them back to Genesis in saying: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (vs. 6).

I have only just shared this far with you on how to read things contextually and not make "implied" inferences where you have no text to support them. The point is that, you cannot make Mark 2:27 say or imply what it does not, because the Jews understood there that the Lord Jesus was basing His answer on the Mosaic Law, and not on a text in Genesis for Adam that is no where to be found! That is why you cannot find one verse that states a Sabbath-keeping Law for Adam - as you have earlier confirmed in your response.

Bobbyaf:
Bear in mind that the only reason why Jesus brought up the sabbath issue with the jewish leaders, was simply because they were twisting its true purpose. Jesus saught that opportunity to clear up the issue that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. in other words, the sabbath was not intended to be a burden to mankind, but was to be a blessing, and that is why it was made for mankind, and not only for the jews.

First, please read the context of any verse you discuss in the Bible. Jesus did not bring up the sabbath issue with the Jewish leaders; rather, they brought up the issue to Him! It is interesting, though, that you attempted to relate the spiritual purpose of the Sabbath without actually answering my questions earlier offered. Here they are again, and I add a 4th based on your above:

Besides, when taken separately, what would be the significance of each of the clauses in Mark 2:27 -

              [#2] the Sabbath was made for man
              [#3] man was made for the Sabbath
              [#4] man was not made for the Sabbath

. . . and the 4th added question:

              [#5] how was the Sabbath to be kept according the its specific commandment?

That brings the total number of questions so far to 5, and I notice you're not very keen on offering answers to questions. Do I assume that you can't find answers to them, or that you simply would not like to answer them?

Bobbyaf:
The context is clear that at all times the jewish leaders saught a reason to condemn Christ. Whatever good works that Christ did on the sabbath would have been a problem to them just the same.

Interesting that you mention "good works that Christ did on the sabbath!" The question that needs answered here by you is: what did the Law of the Sabbath say about works in the OT?

Bobbyaf:
As to your point that it was a jewish population He addressed, makes no difference. The sabbath was made before the Old and New covenant, and is not confined to just the jews.

Granted. I have asked you to find me that very Sabbath command specifically instituted as a Law "before the Old and New covenant". It is not enough to assume it is "implied" - please provide the very text in the OT that stipulates it as a command/law before Exodus.

Bobbyaf:
Jesus, and the apostles were jews and were accustomed to keeping the sabbath, both inside the temples, and outside the temples where gentile and jewish christians worshipped. Bear in mind that it was from the temples that Paul hitherto Saul, persecuted those same christians who worshipped therein. (see Acts 9:1-2)

Let's not mix up issues here. I would like to know, at the risk of repeating this same question: what is the specific stipulation(s) concerning HOW the Sabbath should be kept. I hope you understand that Adam had no Temples for worship; so please show me HOW Adam was commanded to keep the Sabbath!

Second, before you assume that the Lord Jesus kept the Sabbath, again please provide how the Sabbath was to be kept/observed. It is of little relevance (if at all) that Christians were being persecuted in the temples.

Bobbyaf:
You are saying that Paul only encountered the sabbath because he had to go in the temples to preach or teach. The scriptures say the opposite.

I said no such thing! Read it again.

@goodguy,

I think you'd be in the same shoes you're polishing for others, because you're stating what you believe in the same that you feel others are stating theirs. What may not really be broadly applicable in every case is your belief that:

goodguy:
It's even more difficult to convince someone over the Internet, because nobody knows anybody, and whatever somebody says cannot just be generally accepted by everybody.

I will not pretend to know how this applies in every case; but believe me that I have seen so many people read stuff on a website and changed their views on their preconceptions. Just out of curiosity, I wondered why a former member left the SDA (now one of my friends). When I enquired what websites and blogs helped change his mind, it almost knocked me out flat to read the very aggressive language debaters used on the fora! Further asked him if he wasn't bothered about the missives traded across board, he smiled and quipped that anyone who was serious about the eternal destiny of his or her soul will see beyond the language and seek the gist of the discussion.

Pretty much the same could be said about two other friends who were former muslims. One came to change his mind about Islam and trusted Christ after a persistent and "aggressive" Christian kept urging him to investigate his religion. The other was hoping to 'hook' a lady in the UK for an arrangee marriage (MOC - marriage of convenience) so he could use her for the prestigious visa. Fair enough, he never said he saw aggresive material on the web against Islam; but did admit that part of the same aggressive approach from his "former bait" (as he previously called her) helped him reconsider his own aggressive 'blindness' in Islam. They've been happily married since and living in the UK.

I'm not advocating vitriol or calumny in debates; but I'm not too sure that "it's even more difficult to convince someone over the Internet". Fair enough that Prov. 15:1 should help shape discussions on the Forum; but "aggressive approach" is a relative term if it fails to be contextually defined.