Telly B:

So, here it is not merely a question between the Qur'an and Hadith; but t[b]he other sources must be included[/b] in the fundamental principle (usul)as sources of Islamic doctrine and social views.

Hmmm. I'm learning new things everyday. If not for this, I would still have been thinking it was only the Qur'an and the Hadith. Now I understand why there so many practices among Muslims that are not found in the Qur'an.

stimulus:

Anyway, so, in the whole ambit of this subject, what then is the reward of of women in jannah?

Em, can the Muslim women help with the question?

dinner m:

anyday could be ok.as long as its God u'r serving.

You're so succinct and straight to the point. God bless.

@ricadelide, TayoD, Telly B,

It seems that we've this silverline testimony among ourselves. Of course, I don't infer that other men of God come behind; but the names you guys have mentioned happen to be those who have enriched and shaped my spiritual life.

May God bless them all; and even those who are unsung (or not prominent), we praise God for privileging our great country, Nigeria.

@TayoD,

We learn from one another. And you have added to my understanding on this subject with the recent outline yet again.

Bless up.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

There is a very great difference between christianity and islam the difference is so great that no ordinary mind can comprehend, to me both religions are flawed , where does that leave us the followers of the two religions? At each other throat or at peace with each other? try to accept the difference in each other and live with it, its better to be an atheist than to be osama bin laden no matter what islam teaches him. better to be a atheist than to a pope that will kill and decieve people in the name of christianity. religion is for the betterment of the people, even though it has failed to do that but still it should not be an instrument of division amongst the higly enligthened people on this board.

Your reasoning is also flawed; otherwise you would long have had to address your problems in a balanced way and not assume that if religion did not work for you, then it automatically has failed for others.

If I can speak for myself, Christianity has worked for me. That is one reason that I can sanely challenge the views that want us to just sit idly and become victims to global terrorism. I have no problem with other religions or whatever else anyone wants to believe for that matter. But that Islam has sworn to make me (a Christian) "the worst of creatures" is something that feeds Islamic terrorism - and that is what I continually challenge.

@simmy,

simmy:

because women are sexy and will stop me from concentrating on my prayers. Wish xtians could adopt the same principle!

Lol, unfortunately Christianity does not.

simmy:

@barikade
to be fair to oyb! heresy was a capital offence in those days, a man who had opinions differing from that of the church risked his life.

I'm being fair to oyb, and that's why I point him back to the Bible for answers. I'm least interested in what interpretations people come up with in either religions in order to murder people. Bottomline is that as a Christian, I'm not called to a life of murder for whatever cause and at whatever cost.

simmy:

To be fair to the muslims, we xtians go on and on about how violent the muslims are (im not saying their not a bunch of bloodthirsty personalitites)

It is this repeated sounding off of the dangers of islamic terrorism that has brought and advanced public awareness at large, so that people can fight deception head on.

simmy:

but have u ever considered the amount of bloodshed that xtianity has shed in the past?

I have. And I can guarantee you that those wars in the name of Christ do not prove that Christianity was established as a violent faith.

simmy:

Christianity is the singyular most violent religion in the history of mankind! if u don't believe me just go through your history books,

I'm quite aware of what history records for us; and I must say that your assumptions are flawed. People like to believe that Christianity is the singular most violent religion in the history of mankind because they haven't checked the history books themselves; and I don't count as one of those who slave unto a revisionistic history to the politically correct.

If you really want to bear the facts, we could outline the history of religious violence and see if your assumptions can stand any scrutiny. Muslims themselves very well know what history says; and this "fairness" to oyb or his folks does not wipe the slates of Islamic terrorism. It has become a reality that both religious and irreligious people have to live with.

abdulg:

Jihad - Supreme Efforts in the Way of Allah

Jihad means, exerting one's utmost power contending with an object of disapprobation, and this is of three kinds, namely, (1) with a visible enemy, (2) with Satan, and (3) with one's self.

The Quran teaches that when war breaks out, it should be waged in such a way as to cause the least possible amount of damage to life and property; and that hostilities should be brought to a close as quickly as possible.

There are other meanings of jihad that need to be addressed, especially the aspect of armed military warfare.

One may be willing to take your persuasion of non-hostility if only that is what Muhammad taught. However, it is clear that Muhammad did not believe in his own tenets and was hostile to his last breath against Christians and Jews. The result of that hostility is still evident today in the Muslim mindset of the Middle Easterners who want to see Israel destroyed!

abdulg:

well i have not seen the threand so am just post my if u have question ask me

Take a look at the other thread:

         Why Do Muslims Face The East When Praying?

         https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-53767.0.html#msg1118617

Regards.

Topic: "Why We Face The East In Prayer"

@abdulg,

We've seen those verses before; but it still does not answer the question that is being pursued in another thread. Besides, the topic is misleading both to you and your fellow Muslims: it is not a question of facing the EAST; but of facing the Qiblah! If you're arguing for the EAST again, you will invite a whole fresh debate that has been scored and done with:

                   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-53767.32.html#msg1123203

Please correct the topic, and offer us some reasonable answers to the question, if you may. Perhaps the Topic should rather read:

"Why We Face The Kaa'ba/Qiblah In Prayer"


Cheers. 

@Grouppoint,

Grouppoint:

However, "Having no begining of days nor end of life", is a nature of divinity. This means that he is eternal.
Angels are also eternal, this does not make them God.

I wouldn't be so sure that the phrase "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" as appears in heb. 7:3 would mean that Melchizedek was deity. Other texts of Scripture do not give such a persuasion; rather, they prove just the opposite.

Secondly, I'm not sure the Bible teaches that angels are eternal - they're not. They had a beginning; and that simply points to the fact that they're not eternal.

Col. 1:16 - "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

Grouppoint:

The question is, What did Paul say when he stated that Melchi had no begining nor end?
Was this divine revelation, or was Paul simply stating that scripture shewed only Melchi's appearing, and not his demise?

Well, it was a question of having neither beginning of days (meaning, that his genealogy was not counted from those we find recorded among the genealogical records - as in Genesis down through to I & II Chron.).

The same thing would be implied by "nor end of life" - which, I agree with you, has to do with no record of his demise.

@oyb,

oyb:

I just realised something;

You're always realizing "something" after you've posted your complaints.

oyb:

there seems to be a misinterpretation of the question
why don´t men and women pray together in the mosque?

men and women do pray together in the mosque, in seperate groups(ideally with a barrier between the two).the nature of the posts by the Christan Supremacists make it clear that they are coming from the following angle: only MEN pray in the mosque.

See your "freedom" in Islam! They ideally use barriers between the two, but there are no barriers when your men are lusting after women outside the mosques!  

oyb:

'what we have here is a failure to communicate'

I suspected as much - your Muslim apologists have well demonstrated that!  

oyb:

this may have come about for any of the following reasons:

1) The crusaders have always celebrated themselves as intelligent and knowledgeable about Islam.(in nairaland, recycling/perusing the contents of a few sleazy websites can make any numbnuts an authority on Islam )

We didn't have celebrate ourselves as intelligent as did the Qur'an in referring to Christians as very intelligent people who are devoted to learning. Did the Qur'an not say so - Qur'an 5:82?

oyb:

All the muslims who replied to this post gave them far too much credit( for the self lauded intelligence)The fact that Muslim men and women pray together in the mosque is probably not included in their hate literature . any idiot should be aware that men and women pray in mosques. I should have realised that they are too uninformed to realise that men and women do pray together in the mosque; I should have spelt it out, and slowly.

See? That's why the Qur'an gives us that "far too much credit" and never once said that Muslims are intelligent. At least, you have well demonstrated that you're only realizing issues after you've posted your own drivel.  

Even then, the barricade thing does not show that Men and Women Pray TOGETHER!!   When you say that they pray in separate groups, is that the same thing as praying together in the mosques?  Even if you spelt that slowly, you're still knotting your language, my guy!

oyb:

2) the crusaders decided to be deliberately,cunningly, maliciously, ignorant .they are aware that male and female muslims pray together in the mosque, but it serves their slanderous purpose to pretend otherwise .

What's this deliberate cunning you're whipping up here? Did you not admit that men and women pray separately? How does TOGETHER and SEPARATELY tessellate in your diction?  

oyb:

some may choose to reiterate about how they are not distracted by women when in church(they will also take the opportunity to give broad hints about their 4.5 gpa .they may also inform us that even white women do not hold any attraction to them(as if that should be of any intrest to us ) to that, i will simply reference pop culture:

Haba, oyb! Are these the issues that have been going on in your mind when you think of men and women praying together/separately in the mosques?  

oyb:

the video 'I used to love u'.in it john legend´s girl friend spends the entire service staring at a rich dude, rather than following the sermon

the movie: 'two can play that game'.there´s a scene in the movie where Morris Chestnut's friend admonishes him

' the same gals shaking their booty in the club on saturday are shaking their booty in the church on sunday!'

telling him that if here´s no dough to get it on with chicks at the club, you can always take the cheaper option-the church

Okay, so it suits your own propaganda to take your understanding of Christianity from a movie? You have again demonstrated why the Qur'an never referred to a Muslim as intelligent!  

oyb:

the lover will start to yakety yak about how i´m a dummy reading too much from movies, so I´ll just refer her to the threads where posters have complained about the sort of clothes(inverse burqas, everything up on display! ) that some gals choose to wear to church . I wonder what their aim could be?Anyway, it doesn´t matter if they choose to go naked to church, since all christian men are immune to the charms of women .it is a scientifically proven fact that all rapes, molestations,sexual harrassements etal are conducted by males of other religions.

Come on, oyb!    The rapes are best describe every now and then in "other religions" - but what religion is being practiced under the Hudood Law in Pakistan that makes a rape victim prey to the Muslim policemen that are supposed to protect them? What about the temporary marriages that Islam teaches so that Muslim men may do their thing and still excuse them as nothing?

It is only when these cases are brought to light that the Muslim propaganda sees them as happening in "other religions"!  

oyb:

going by your scripture, it would seem that the place of women is to wash priest's feet with their hair and tears.maybe you can elaborate on why they were no women among the disciples, and no female prophets in the bible.

Olodo!   There were prophetesses in the Bible. Sample these:

      Exo 15:20 -  Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron

      Judg. 4:4 - Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth

      2 Kings 22:14 - Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum

      Neh. 6:14  -  the prophetess Noadiah

      Luke 2:36  -  Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel

Did you miss those? Of course, Muhammad may not have recognized them for Muslims; and that's why Muslims often miss them. Think outside your box, my guy!  

The woman's place is not to wash the priest's hair with her hair; and that was another backyard reasoning by your Muslim mindset.

oyb:

They are not a tilth to be gone into whichever way pleases a man like Muhammad taught.

No, Christian women are not to be regarded as "tilths" - they're more dignified than that!  

oyb:

ah, another missionary, advocating the 'missionary' position to the natives

a final dig: an encylopedia is obviously a biased source on christianity:after all, christianity and science have always been at war

Christianity and science have not always been at war; it is rather the pretences of the Qur'an to fit it into science that is such a laugh!  

Any encyclopedia that is worth its merit would not obfuscate Biblical teaching. And where they do, we have often pointed them back to what the Bible says. For instance, if an encyclopedia should interpret Jesus' teachings and make a Jihadist of Him where he obviously was not one, we can challenge that ribald thinking.

Unlike the Muslim mindset, even where truth is declared, you still come back with your games of al-Taqiyya!  

oyb:

scientist: the earth revovles round the sun!
christian theologist: heresy! off with his head!

And by this you assume that the Bible teaches we should behead people like Muhammad did? Titters!  

Let's look at an easy example:

Geographer: there are 4 cardinal positions one can point to on earth: east, west, north, south!
Imam and the mullah: everywhere a muslim stands is EAST!!  

I no fit laugh again!  

nossycheek:

Lol, David, Telly B, Babyosisi & others, you have said it all. I was about replying nyabinghi's posts when I saw your marvelous responses.

It is right to let them know the truth, about what the qur'an teaches in case they pretend not to know

You took it right out of my mouth!

@mrpataks,  lol. . . we now have to make guesses at who was developing cold feet.  



@nyabinghi, you just can't keep passing off literary fart and holding your nose while pretending you're sniffing arabain perfume. Go dig the facts first before asking if others are developing cold sweat feet!

@lafile,

lafile:

@Bari_kade, thesilent1, TayoD
If I understand correctly what y'all are saying, the "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" statement merely refers to his priesthood and not his person. Meaning His priesthood had no beginning and no end, no predecessor and no succesor right?

Nope, I didn't mean it that way. Here's what I said earlier:

        Priesthood. That is the one thing that made Melchizedek "great" (Heb. 7:4).

        Person. He is made like unto the Son of God; but he is not deity.

I would agree with simmy in part that Paul was definitely speaking spiritually - as I'm one of those who believes he characteristically used such expressions throughout Hebrews (if he is the author of that epistle).

Let me remind you of another: in Heb. 11:17, the author speaks of Isaac as Abraham's "only-begotten son"; but we know that Abraham already had Ishmael before Isaac was born. What I believe the author was pointing out there was that Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son in reference to the covenant that God gave unto the patriarch.

Back in Genesis, even God Himself so addressed the patriarch and thrice referred to Isaac in this manner: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac" (Gen. 22:2, 12 & 16). What was happening was that Isaac was regarded as Abraham's only son according to God's covenant with him (Gen. 17:19).

Now, back to Heb. 7:3 - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

First off, I would have to confess that this is one of the mysteries of the Bible that I'm still studying; so anything I say here is not to be taken as authoritative.

However, why I believe that Melchizedek was not deity is because the Bible says he was made like unto - patterned after - the Son of God.

Surely he is identified with a place, for he was King of Salem. That place had special significance among God's people; for later the Psalmist would say in Psa. 76:2 - "In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion." Melchizedek was also the priest of the most high God.

These two things (Kingship and Priesthood) prefigured that which we find in Christ. But the problem with many of us when we read Heb. 7:3 is that Melchizedek was reported as having neither mother nor father nor descent. Hmmm. Here's what I think the author was pointing out in his characteristic language construct:

"Without father, without mother, without descent" - Melchizedek was not mentioned in any genealogy as was required of any figure who was connected to preisthood. When you read the OT, you will find numerous pedigrees recorded; and it was important that both preists and those who ate of the sacrifices should have proof of their pedigrees or genealogy. If they did not, they were barred from partaking of the sacrifices; or otherwise not permitted to assume their static roles. An example:

Neh. 7:61 & 64
"And these were they which went up also from Telmelah, Telharesha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, nor their seed, whether they were of Israel. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood."

It was essential that genealogies were recorded, and a priest had to prove his lineage and descent before his priesthood could be recognized or acknowledged. However, the author of Hebrews uses this same argument to demonstrate rather that, since Melchizedek was a King and a Priest, but whose genealogy was not recorded, his priesthood stood as a prefigure of the timelessness of Christ's own Priesthood. That Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy, the author of Hebrews was arguing that they could not seek for a time scale to weigh the veracity of his priesthood, which the man Melchizedek was said to be made like unto the Son of God! The Son of God superceded him, for Melcizedek was only made like unto Christ!

The same thing would be said in the other part of Heb. 7:3 --  "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Please note that Christ was not made like unto Melchizedek; rather, the latter was made like unto the former who predated him.

Bottomline: Melchizedek is not deity; and that verse is a characteristic langauge demontrating the timelessness of Christ's priesthood, in as much as the genealogy of Melchizedek was not given where others were clearly stated.

Regards.  

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

John says that "sin is transgression of God's law" , obvioulsy there can only be one law whose set of principles existed nonetheless. Some 3000 years after that set of principles were transcripted on tables of stones to serve as a guide to a rebellios set of hebrews.

Could you then find me the verses for the exemptions you made for the set of principles of that one law?

Bobbyaf:

Its obvious that that covenant was not the same that was made with previous patriarchs in times past. Its also obvious that God had called no other nation but that of the hebrews, but that act in and of itself doesn't prove that the sabbath was only confined to them. Its always dangerous to quote out of context.

If it's always dangerous to quote out of context, you just did that very thing. If the covenants were not the same, you don't need to swirl around and try to make them the same for a set of people who were not under that covenant! You simply can't go round what is stated in Deut. 5:2-3.

Bobbyaf:

God didn't make that covenant with none other because that covenant was unique. Never before had God given His law on tables before. We could argue that there were so many things that were unique to that experience of recieving God's law under such thunderous and majestic display, that Moses had to sink it in, This was no ordinary experience comparatively speaking with reference to any experience before this one.

What made that covenant uniquely for Israel - the experiences of the "thuderous and majestic display"; or what the Commandments said? Was Moses speaking about the thunders in Deuteronomy 5; or was he reiterating the Ten Commandments? You are looking for loopholes to explain this issue away; and such an attitude has constantly been one of your problems.

Bobbyaf:

The fact that others didn't have the statutes and judgements of God as given then didn't mean that other nations were not supposed to know about them. It can be easily argued that God intended to do it one step at a time, together with the fact that God wanted them to see how special a vessel they were for having the divine oracles of God.

How were other nations supposed to know what was not decalred unto them? If they knew about it, then there would have been no need for Moses to make his boast in Deut. 4:6-8.

Bobbyaf:

I am of the view that God is no respecter of persons, and He loves all races of people. I also believe that God intended to use israel as a vessel of His light and truth to reach the gentiles who were afar off, and who needed to come to a knowledge of God. Look at Nineveh for example. God sent Jonah to warn them of His impending judgements, and they repented and served God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon eventually repented and served the God of heaven.

I have already considered the cases of Nineveh and Nebuchadnezzar when I was studying the Sabbath. Did you note carefully that in neither cases were the Sabbath Law applicable? To make a case for one would simply mean that they kept the whole Law. Can you make a case that they actually did?

Bobbyaf:

Israel failed then to be that witness. God has drafted the very gentiles into the olive tree along with the faithful hebrews to now preach the gospel they should have preached.

Please, Bobbyaf, don't mix issues up. Were the Hebrews under the old covenant expected to preach a new covenant Gospel? Your story-telling is amazing! Gentiles are not grafted into the olive tree to go preach a Sabbath Law with all of its stipulations. "For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious" (2 Cor. 3:10 & 11).

Bobbyaf:

The covenant that was made with Abraham was meant for all races, It said that all tribes of the earth would be blessed through the seed of Abraham, being Christ. In fact he himself was not even a jew, but the father of all nations.

Did the Abrahamic covenant mention the Sabbath Law that you're mixing up with that found in Exodus and Deuteronomy?

Bobbyaf:

The sabbath was not new to the children of Israel before Sinai. God tested them about proper sabbath keeping with manna.

Which again brings us back to the oft-repeated question of the stipulations for the Sabbath Law. The Sabbath was new to the children of Israel in as much as there was no hint of their keeping it at all while they were in Egypt. If they were familiar with the Sabbath before Moses was sent as their deliverer, they would not be asking questions about what they already knew!

Bobbyaf:

Logically the sabbath was not just invented at that point in time for Moses to have expected them to be so careful. Moses reminded them about the nearness of the sabbath, and chose to prepare them for it. Obviously, they had forgotten its importance in Egypt to have needed a reminder.

It wasn't a case of their having "forgotten" its importance in Egypt. At least, they didn't forget the LORD that they were calling upon while still in Egypt. The point was that the Israelites had no idea of a Sabbath Law, let alone its importance! Could you please offer me a verse that showed they kept, or knew about, the Sabbath while they were in Egypt?

Bobbyaf:

Notice what God said to Moses about keeping His laws and commandments? How long refuse you to keep my laws implies that the sabbath command as some suggest was not just invented for the manna experience. In other words if this were the very first time that Moses was implementing the sabbath command then the phrase "how long refuse ye to keep my laws" would have been an unreasonable one.

Let me call your attention to a line in Exo. 16:23 - "And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD. . ."

This is that which - when did God first intimate the rest of the Sabbath to Moses to pass unto the Israelites? Was it while they were still in Egypt under Pharaoh's tyranny; or after they left Egypt? Is there any indication that they were keeping the Sabbath while still in Egypt to have warranted their question?

You see, back in verses 4 & 5, God intimated the issue of the Sabbath in order that He may prove the hearts of Israelites whom He had redeemed from Egypt: "that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." For as yet, He had not given them the Law; but only indicated that He would first test their hearts in readiness to receive the Sinaitic law. There is no indication that the Law was received while the Israelites were still in Egypt; and so, they could not have even tried to keep a Sabbath law that they knew nothing about.

Bobbyaf:

That would be like a sudden imposition on a people who were not familiar with sabbath keeping to just up and start keeping a day just like that. Thos who knew better were expected to do better, but their long sojourn in Egypt and after exposing themselves with the Egyptian practises, made them spiritually negligeble.

The Hebrews were not spiritually negligent. The Bible teaches that they called upon the LORD, and He answered (Exo. 3:7).

Bobbyaf:

That was explained already, and as for being justified by the law SDAs don't teach that. We know that only grace can save, but we also know that the law points out sin. Once again your use of Paul's writings is ou tof context because you always fail to show how Paul qualifies each of his arguments surrounding the law.

You're hoping to be an officer in charge to account my use of Paul's argument as out of context. Sorry, I used them precisely to point out the fact that the SDA has many times contradicted themselves; and not even Paul made room for any exemptions of the Sabbath Law.

Bobbyaf:

Not in all cases does Paul address the moral law. Sometimes he deals with issues surrounding the ceremonial laws that were being forced upon the gentile christians by the jewish converts to christianity, who felt that salvation somehow had to do with rituals and ceremonies. Don't confuse us with them.

I haven't confused the issues of the Law wherever they were quoted. I offered questions, which you evaded in order to make excuses for your exemptions. It's either you seek your justification in Jesus Christ alone and not adding your copped out excuses for a Sabbath Law you cannot keep or sustain; or you stand in the same Law and face the consequences of violating its stipulations by your so-called "professional" exemptions. You just can't have it both ways.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

It never had to because it was pretty obvious that she stole the forbiden fruit. If thats not stealing I don't know what it is. Surface reading isn't enough. One must look beyond for deeper meaning, and that act in itself doesn't mean one is interpolating.

There is not a single verse that accuses Adam or Eve of the things you alleged against them. Applying a non-existent "deeper meaning" to accuse people of what they're not guilty of is exactly what legalistic cultists do. Please do keep pressing this point; and if you must, please show us where in the Bible Adam and Eve were called thieves!

Bobbyaf:

Yea, yea, yada yada yada, but the bible didn't have to be overly decriptive for any blind bat to see all that, I am simply bring ing out themes that you couldn't see, or have seen but felt obliged to complain anyway.

I didn't see where your vampire descriptions came from. Do you mind simply stating the verse that called Adam and Eve "theives" in just the way I offered the verses that stated the contrary?

Bobbyaf:

The bible simply says, and of course you don't have a mind to dig for meaning way beyond what is expected of you. Where is that gift of understanding and knowledge of the bible?

If I didn't do any digging, I would not have offered verses. The problem here is that you allege what you have no verses for against Adam or Eve. Is that a perculiar gift of your eisegesis?

Bobbyaf:

My reason for approaching the account in that manner was to show the board that God's law is eternal in its principles, and defines sin in any dispensation the same way. So although sinning was confined around the forbidden tree in the sense of doing or not doing something, there were far greater forces at work besides the act itself, that involved their minds as humans.

Applying any principle in order to falsely accuse people is morally wrong and intellectually dishonest. Until you can clearly provide the verses that named Adam and Eve as "thieves", your application is outside God's Word.

Bobbyaf:

It wouldn't be fair to even think it. Why, because your thought about how the jews might have been led to keep the sabbath in that geographical context, and how we as SDAs are asked to keep the same sabbath in our time and situation, is nothing short of ridiculous.

As far as we can read, the Bible simply says that there is ONLY ONE MANNER OF LAW for both Jews and sojourners: "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God" (Lev. 24:22). So, if God's word says so, and you count it "ridiculous", we can now begin to see the double standard you have been artfully applying.

Bobbyaf:

There are so many factors that led to the kinds of restrictions and limitations in those days compared to our time. Those restrictions came at a time in Israel's experience when they were spiritually immature and stiff-necked. We now have their experience to learn from.

Whatever restrictions and time you're seeking, there was no change in the stipulations of the Sabbath Law. Are you not the same chap who offered a white-lipped quote of Jesus' words that "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law"? The experiences to learn from should simply lead you back to the stipulations of the same Law you've been arguing for all this time!

Bobbyaf:

At the time the sabbath was given it could not be rightly viewed as a commandment since it was given as a gift from God. Jesus said that "the sabbath was made for man, "

Oh, I see. So where does that leave your earlier assumption that Gen. 2:3 was a commandment? Meanwhile, did Moses treat Exo. 20:8-11 as a gift or as a commandment? You're simply knotting yourself all the more. I warned you from the onset to carefully go back and see the difference between GENESIS and EXODUS. No wonder you kept evdaing the 17 questions I offered you with the lame excuse that they twisted scripture!

Bobbyaf:

Remember that sin had not yet manifested itself. The same argument could be said of marriage. It was introduced to both humans as well, but not as a commandment as such. After sin the specific law against adultery was enforced. Likewise a specific law against sabbath breaking was enforced

Quaint. So, the commandment was non-existent in Genesis, and only came into the picture in Exodus? Now, if God did not command it unto Adam and Eve, your whole argument is merely an exercise in futility in as much as God did not ask us to keep the Law in Exodus. Again, since the 10 commandments were not given until AFTER sin manifested itself, how would you have attempted to apply Exo. 20:15 and called Eve a "thief"?

This is why I have tried to caution that you cannot apply a Law on a people who predated that Law!

Bobbyaf:

Bear in mind too that the sabbath was not sanctified for God, but for man. God doesn't need to keep the day holy, but we need to, since keeping a day holy as God expects requires that we too must live holy lives

.

There was no commandment in GENESIS to keep a Sabbath Law - you hinted that yourself! If you take your argument of a Sabbath Law from Exodus, then you would have to follow the stipulations that came along with that Sabbath Law, and not cut corners with your exemptions.

Bobbyaf:

I have always agreed that keeping the sabbath, or the moral law fo rthat matter cannot make a person holy, but when a person is holy by God's sanctifying grace then that one will keep God's holy requirements. In our sanctified walk with Jesus Christ we must strive for holiness.

You're mixing up Law and Grace. In one statement, the Law does not justify anyone before God - and it doesn't matter whether it was the Sabbath Law or the moral law. Only in Jesus Christ do we find our justification - and that is the strain of the NT.

Bobbyaf:

Not in the manner you're expecting to find them. However, their principles did exist for both humans as well. They might not have been pronounced, but they certainly defined sin then. Absence of proof doesn't conclude proof of absence. The lack of the written code doesn't mean that principles against evil couldn't have existed. All I am saying is that when we look at the principles that govern the moral law of God today or whenever they were encoded, and look at the decisions that faced both Adam and Eve then, we can clearly see the same line of principles back then.

For all of that, not one verse (directly or indirectly) accuses Eve of being a "thief" or of having "stolen" anything. God's Word is clear, and I offered the verses to show what God said of exactly about their sin.

It is rather silly to assume that God would have given any commandments which "might not have been pronounced"! If God did not pronounce any commandments, it is unethical to pronounce one on His behalf.

Bobbyaf:

I raised the issue of Eve becoming Adam's god because that is exactly what happened. He placed his wife before God's command and will. He was selfish and only thought about the possibilty of losing his precious Eve. As if God couldn't mak ehim another woman. He knew what she did with the fruit. He was forced with a decision to stand for God or die with Eve, and he chose the latter. Thus he sinned, not because he was decieved, but because he chose Eve over God. Eating the fruit was just the act, but his ability to judge correctly was affected by his selfish love.

There is not a single verse that supports what you have just stated. Not one. The Bible is clear on what exactly happened; and it does not remotely suggest that Adam saw his wife as his god in place of God Himself. If you cannot provide a verse for this, throw it back to the cultic camp where it came from. And if you must keep making these false accusations, then we should assume that your "professional" work has become your own god; because you have chosen to make exemptions for the strick Sabbath Law where the Law made no excuses! Fair enough?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

There were seven yearly holy days, or holidays, in ancient Israel which were also called sabbaths. These were in addition to, or "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:38), or seventh-day Sabbath. These all foreshadowed, or pointed to, the cross and ended at the cross. God's seventh-day Sabbath was made before sin entered, and therefore could foreshadow nothing about deliverance from sin. That's why Colossians chapter 2 differentiates and specifically mentions the sabbaths that were "a shadow." These seven yearly sabbaths which were abolished are listed in Leviticus chapter 23.

Was Paul speaking of yearly sabbaths or sabbath days in Col. 2:16? Even if I should grant your arguments for the yearly sabbaths, it still would bring us back to throwing the mind again to the old creation - something which simple has no place in the new covenant fro Christians. When the Lord Jesus went to the Cross, the victory purchased there by His blood for us was not to bring us back to an old creation system or remembrance; but rather, everywhere it is mentioned, we read that Christians have been brought into the New covenant, including the blessing of the NEW creation (2 Cor. 5:17 & Gal. 6:15). Not one verse in the NT argues for Christians to remember the Sabbath day; rather, we are asked to remember the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (1 Cor. 11:24 & 25).

Bobbyaf:

I don't mind being called comical for Christ, but the challenge is yet to be met.

No, I don't mind your slobbers as well; and if there's any challenge to be met, please go over to the other thread and proffer reasonable answers to my 17 challenges.

Bobbyaf:

If anything those so-called 17 challenges were nothing short of the twisting of the scriptures to prove nothing.

In very simple terms, that's a convenient way of sobbing that you had no answers for straightforward questions.

Bobbyaf:

Its easy to quote scriptures, its quite another matter to use them in context.

Which is still hugely missing from your posts.

Bobbyaf:

So far none of you have used scriptures in context to support your Sunday doctrine, but instead I have presented straight forward references to show that God's holy, spiritual, laws are fixed in time and eternity

.

Both with Scripture and historical antecedents, abundant proofs have been proffered for why the Sabbath Law of a Saturday has no place for the NT Christian. If anything at all, you've been arguing for a Sabbath Law and yet breaking it by your excuses of "exemptions" where the Law made no room for such exemptions.

Bobbyaf:

Is it any wonder Daniel predicted that the "little horn" power would think to change God's times and laws. You're just being used as a pawn for the RCC to push their agenda of Sunday sacredness globally. I hope to God for your sake that your eyes will be opened soon enough.

I'm neither an RCC or one of their pawns, thank you. God's times and laws would not be affected by those who think to offer exemptions for why the same Laws they cannot keep.

Bobbyaf:

And I suppose the disciples and apostles weren't christians, and that they didn't keep the sabbath? I gave you so many obvious and indisputable references that I now am beginning to wonder if you're amnetic.

First, the same disciples and apostles who were Christians argued against the keeping of a Sabbath Law that did not justify anyone in the sight of God. (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16).

Second, they offered no exemptions for anyone who wanted to keep the Sabbath Law; even going so far as to say that anyone who wanted to do so was indebted to keep the whole Law (Gal. 3:10 & 5:3, 4; James 2:10). That would definitely include the stipulations that the SDA have often been excusing!

Third, history bears record of the Church Fathers who wrote their observations of what the early Christians did. There is no denying the fact of the testimony that the early Christians did not keep the Sabbath, as stimulus has outlined for you earlier:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-55857.0.html#msg1167803

Whichever way you want to look at it, it brings you back to one point: your arguments are punctured by the very fact of your excusing the stipulations of the Sabbath Law with your exemptions.

Bobbyaf:

The apostles in the early New Testament church not only obeyed God's Sabbath command, but they also taught the converted Gentiles to worship on Sabbath. Never once do they refer to Sunday as a holy day.

The apostles of the New Testament did not teach Christians to live like Jews under an OT Sabbath Law. Paul vigorously argued for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ as the singular effect that justifies a believer in the sight of God; for no one can be justified by observing the OT Law.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Yes its old but that doesn't mean that God doesn't want it remembered

If God wanted us to set our minds on the old, He would have said so in the NT. But the strain of the NT points clearly to the NEW creation, not the old.

Bobbyaf:

Its clear as day that God's work in all its forms were meant to be remembered. Since the seventh-day sabbath is a memorial of the works of creation God expects us to keep it in accordance with His requirements. God's unchanging law like Himself demands it.

Very good, Bobbyaf. That is why time and again I have asked you to go back to God's Word and keep the Sabbath according to its stipulations and make no excuses for your exemptions. Failing to do that is hypocrisy. It would not speak well of you to agree that the Sabbath should be according to God's requirements, while you conveniently cut corners for your exemptions!

Bobbyaf:

All that is good and appreciated by me, and I totally agree with you that we must look to Jesus, but that doesn't change the fact, that it was Jesus Himself who said that whosoever teaches men to break any of His father's commandments, including the sabbath command would be called least in the kingdom. Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away first, and all be fulfilled.

If you cannot understand the meaning of Jesus fulfilling the Law for us, then you would strictly have to adhere to what the Law says! Do you see that your exemptions are seriously contradicting the fact that "not one jot or tittle should pass from the law"?? You cannot quote Scripture and agree with what it says and yet come back several times to make exemptions where God made no such exemptions!

Bobbyaf:

No one can get around the simple and straightforward teachings of Jesus. It doesn't matter how many texts you bring to the fora to support erroroneous teachings. Truth will always win over error.

The simple and straight forward teachings of the Lord Jesus is what I have presented. Your error was introduced through the back door asking for exemptions where God made none in the Sabbath Law. Indeed, truth wins over error; especially the age-old error in the SDA!

Bobbyaf:

What better day to celebrate it than on God's holy and dedicated day of rest and worship called the seventh-day sabbath. There is absolutely no text that supports the notion that Sunday was the new dedicated day for celebrating the Lord's supper.

Your argument has been to remember the Sabbath DAY; and not to remember the LORD HIMSELF! My rejoinder was to clearly point out that Christians are asked to remember the Lord, and not the Sabbath. There is no text to show that Saturday was the designated day for keeping the Lord's Supper either.

Bobbyaf:

It was not Moses who wrote the 10 commandments, but God Himself on Mount Sinai.

Arguing that it was not Moses who wrote the 10 commandments is reasoning out of context. Why? Because the commandments are still called the Law of Moses!

Bobbyaf:

It was never Moses who blessed and sanctified the creation sabbath which was placed in the centre of the decalogue, and that is the crux of the matter that all Sunday-gathering christians have missed. Moses simply reminded them what they had already heard from the mountain.

No Israelite could keep the Law until it had been ratified by blood!

Heb. 9:17-20
"For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you."

You would need to go back and study the Law, see what it says and how it reads, before running off with every mention of a 'sabbath' you have failed to understand. The fact that Moses ratified the Law of the Sabbath by blood under a testament (or covenant) demonstrates that Christians are not Jews who live by the old covenant. That is why we are not yoked under a Sabbath Law which no one can keep!

You have said so yourself that no one can keep the sabbath law perfectly ( https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-55857.0.html#msg1165796 ); and yet you contradicted that by saying that not one jot or tittle should pass from the Law as Jesus said! This double standard in your posts simply remind me of what Ignatius said in his epistle to the Magnesians (c. A.D. 110): "It is absurd to have Jesus Christ on the lips, and at the same time live like a Jew."

Bobbyaf:

Not at all. It refers only to the sabbaths which were "a shadow of things to come" and not to the seventh-day Sabbath.

How many seventh-day sabbath laws do you have in the OT?

babyosisi:

maybe babs is now one of yaradua's bodyguards _{or thugs},anything is posible in naija

Lol.

redsun:

He is an idiot for all he stands for.

We all make choices everyday; and most of our choices would make us more descriptive of what we label others.

You may not have liked some or most of OBJ's policies while he was the President; but if he is making a personal choice of what he wants to do with the rest of his life, surely he couldn't merit such vitriol for just making a choice to go back to school?

I couldn't be bothered if he went back to school to study ancient mysticism or even pako (chewing stick). It is his choice, and that is just it.  

@goodguy,

goodguy:

BTW, welcome back on board, bari_kade.

Phew!! Thanks, bros. I'm so relieved to see that some of you much-missed guys are still active! God bless.

olutomiwa:

no mind the guy jare,him no know wetn him dey talk,i,m sure him dey regret now say him bring up this kind yeye issue.

I'm not sure he's exhausted himself yet. He's gone for refuelling!

BTW, where are their chiefs - babs787 and uncle olabowale? The recent chaps need serious backup!!

Carlosein:

more of a debate than an argument.

Lol. . . you're apt.

@oyb,

oyb:

my sources, as everyone who reads my posts(as to the dark side of christianity) should know, are  encyclopedias.they all present both sides, which you will find if you reference the link provided.of course, in your book, those are prejudiced.

Of course, encyclopedias are not divine or the final arbiters of Biblical truth. There are as many several enclopedia that confuse Islamic tenets, most of which deny issues rather than acknowledge them. If an encyclopedic article makes an obvious denial about the Christian faith, the one thing I would do is go back to the Bible and see what God says; rather than pretend that some 'scholar' who denies Biblical teaching should be authority.

oyb:

maybe you should refer back to the lovers comment on unbiased sourcces of info , and my reply; my paraquote of gerorge orwell.

And what point did you make that borders on the issues I raised and called your attention to?

oyb:

if you think about it,I have made sense (I gave a perfectly reasonable explantaion for why muslim men and women do not pray togehter in the mosque.) if you are as balanced as (you like to beleive you are)  to be, rebuke the lover, and the mad scientist  for their  deliberate divergence from the original topic.

Please go back and see what my posts are all about. To you I may not be balanced; but I do believe that I've sought to maintain balance in whatever issues I'm dealing with.

As for rebuking babyosisi, you guys keep inviting the very same problems you complain about. At least, I've discussed with mukina2 and a few other Muslims; as well as debated issues with some Christians on the Forum. Where I was wrong, I offered apologies. If you keep providing the basis for your complaints, is it any wonder that you would come back and read the very same response you crossed your fingers not to read?

oyb:

as a member of a minority (on these threads ), I am unsuprised that you refer to my replies as tantrums.i am sure that to you,  the people that 'make sense' are your fellow christians, who blend fact, conjecture  and fiction    to create their own odd brew of 'Islam is evil'. there is no differenece between them and those jim crow racists of the south.

The same tantrums again. Pardon me, but even I have queried the so-called "freedom" that Muslim apologists noise here on the Forum by making reference to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Are those also a blend of "fact, conjecture, and fiction"?? I don't think you're really paying any attention to reason. And you're welcome to be my guest if all you want is to keep up with the same problems you have been inviting and complaining against in one breath.

oyb:

to clear up a point , as to my learning from the best, I am referring to the lover, the scientist and the prophetess, not websites.

Oh, I see. And you would really believe that the websites you offered were not "the best", no?

oyb:

your friends are playing an even older game; bashing Islam goes right back to the middle ages. not that it matters; We're still here! .

Oh really? I guess if you look into your own Qur'an, Muhammad was such a nice fellow to have received a very complimentary revelation of referring to Christians as the worst of creatures!! Is that something of a recent celebration?  

oyb:

@ bari kade
the above (by the prophetess) must be the sort of 'intelligent ' post on Islam you're refering to.
CIAO

Yep, maybe you should have seen those very erudite ones being posted in recent times by nyabinghi!

@nossycheek,

nossycheek:

Na wao, so you have not been reading your qur'an ehn?
1. MO permitted prostitution for the muslim woman provided she does not desire to remain chaste.
2. Abortion is not allowed in Christianity and I doubt if Islam allows it but people practice it irrespective of religion.
3. High suicide rate; now that I know that all the suicide bombers in Iraq and Pakistan are Christians, I will behave differently
4. Islam is the chief whip of divorce. A religion that permits a man to marry as many as his right hand possesses. And also permits divorce beats my imagination. Women easily ask for divorce and off they go to another man and get divorced again after the marriage must have been comsumated. She goes back to the previous husband, marries him, get divorced again. A woman is allowed marry many times as well as the man and so on and on they keep on recycling the thing until they go down with AIDs.
5. There are no worst slave than the muslim woman who cannot even discuss with her grown male child whom are seperated from her at adolescent. A religion that states that her women have 1/2 brains is better imagined.

Need I say more? I am busy right now, will get back to the topic later.

Wow!!

None of those answers even crossed my mind! Brilliant!

redsun:

His is an idiot because what he is studying has little or no relevance to the real world.

Should a man be called an "idiot" for making a personal choice?

Em, guys. . . just hola me when you want me to press the switch for the engine works!!

tasiana:

with all due respect we all knw there re 2 things we shld never argue about ,Religion and *u knw what*
It can only lead to feud,more feud and a whole lot of animosity.

Let's just tell ourselves the truth. As long as people have anything to say on religion, there is bound to be arguements. The question is HOW we handle the arguments that ensue.

Even when people discuss sports (like football, my fav), folks argue! Who's going to win; who made a false pass that gave the opposing side the victory; who is this, that or the other! At the end of the day, we still cheer our teams on and laugh at our heated debates. Oh, admittedly, arguments over sports have drawn a few daggers that sent some people to their untimely graves; but people still argue!

And romance? Haven't people argued in that as well?

Even politics?

Well, perhaps it is true (as one of my friends once put it): "the only things people never argue about seems to be what has never been mentioned and nobody has ever heard of!"

We can argue or debate any issue. Bottomline: let's just remember that what matters more is HOW we handle and contain our arguments and debates!  

@oyb,

oyb:

i used the term 'explantion of sorts' because i do not consider myself an Islamic authority or scholar.

I don't think many people have so considered themselves here on the Forum. That is why we debate these issues by committing ourselves to unprejudiced sources of information, as well as read issues without biases. If some of us have done that in the past (as I surely have), then we should do the common sense thing of seeking the true gist of an issue instead of pummelling our brains to maintain weak positions.

oyb:

as to the 'deliberate' effort; all i can say to that is: I learned from the best. (your fellow chrisitians knocking Islam in the guise of inquiry)

Are you sure those are the best, or you again deliberately chose those "sources" for the sake of peppering your arguments? In just the same way, I could chose the "best sources" of anti-Islamic documents if all I wanted was to purposely bash Islam - and they are numerous!

Think about it, oyb: at least a few people on the Forum still make sense when discussing Islam. I think it is rather an old, tired game of seeking to play the tantrums of 'tit-for-tat' that many play today, especially Muslims. This call may not be helpful to you; but you will see my point if you keep up the trend in days to come.

Regards.

Priesthood. That is the one thing that made Melchizedek "great" (Heb. 7:4).

Person. He is made like unto the Son of God; but he is not deity.