₦airaland Forum

Righteousness2:
There is enormous power in the tongue.
It has the ability to build, to kill and to destroy.

Be mindful of what you say to yourself. Also cancel and return any evil spoken against you upon the head of the sender.

Most Important, Live life in the Conciousness of Eternity.
While we await the imminent Coming of JESUS Christ, we must understand that Personal Raptures are occurring per seconds.

JESUS Christ is the Only way to Heaven. There is no other.

Righteousness has come again

Obafavour:
@brokeneggshell
I'll keep saying it that your point is baseless and you lack understanding of the bible.
Thank God you said Jesus is the word of God so i refer you to "john 1:1"
None of your point disproves the trinity, you only use your own logic to misinterprete the bible, Jesus clearly stated that we should baptise in the name of the father, son and holy ghost "matthew 28:19". That has proven that they're three in one and if not so Jesus wouldn't have said that.
No one is saying God the father isn't the greatest but what we mean by "holy trinity" is the three working in one, or don't you understand the meaning of trinity? Think!!!
@brokeneggshell

Ok then, explain yourself.
How exactly does Matthew 28:19 suggest that the Trinity exists. Be specific. You haven't given an explanation thus far, you have only just made general statements. How does it prove that they are three in one? Why can't that passage just be him mentioning them? Explain.

Obafavour:
Your point are baseless, that scripture is enough to be convinced that they're equalvalent entity and stop being adamant. Look at "john 10:30, act 1:4-8".
My question is if they aren't equalvalent entity will jesus say "i and the father are one or would he command us with matthew 28:19? Think!!!

Baseless?
Well, I asked you for more scriptures and you delivered, so I won't complain.


John 10:30
I and the Father are one.


This one is either intentional deception on your part or simple laziness. The entire story that that passage comes from even disproves the Trinity, but pulling out convenient verses without reading the entire book will not allow you a complete understanding. The entire incident is from verse 22 to verse 42, which I will dump here:

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.
24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed,
41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.”
42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.

Notice that, in the entire scripture, Jesus consistently emphasizes that his works come from the Father and by the Father's authority. He indirectly declares that he is the Messiah, and the son of God. He also indirectly states that he is lesser than the Father - at least in authority. After all, it is in the Father's name that he works miracles, it is the Father that gives his disciples to him, and it is his Father that preserves their place with the Father, guiding them against those who would turn them away. He states that "I and the Father are One" immediately after this, but from what he said before, this cannot mean that they are literally the same. It would contradict what he said before.

The answer here is that Jesus and the Father are one in the sense that they are in agreement, not that they are literally the same. It is further confirmed by what he says later in verse 36. He states that God set HIM apart as "his very own" and sent HIM into the world. These are obviously not referring to the same people. Finally, he states that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father", which makes even less sense if you are saying that Jesus is the same thing as God. What it instead means is that Jesus and God share core essences or attributes. Jesus is referred to constantly as "the Word of God", that is, the spoken decree of God.


Acts 1:4-8

I don't understand what you mean here. Where does he claim that he is the same as the Father.

Sixfiguresmart:
You have said enough. To this point of Taqiyya, I bow to you.
You came to the point of disowning your own faith because you just cannot prove a religious point. I thank you for your time. Since you are no longer a muslim, I guess my mission is accomplished.

the way people will do just to avoid admitting error...
bye bye oo!!

Sixfiguresmart:
Regardless of where I get it, is it fact or fiction? You want to know where I get the pieces of information that references your own hadith and Quran. What did I just say, Hadith and Quran? Oh, yes! How did you miss that? I quoted the Quran, didn't I? Your job should have been to verify it with the Quran you have in your possession.

To your claim that Christians discredit Islam, No Sir! Muslims over the decade have build up this preemptive wall to malign Christians and the discredit the Bible as spurious and adulterated. The built the wall so high to keep blind Muslims from considering the Bible and they took it 10 steps further to Christians and began amplifying all the narratives not only on megaphones but on television. Initially, they had a pass because these things were written and said in Arabic which was a strange language to almost everyone except the Muslim population. Overtime things went global and the internet connected liberal and ex-muslims with the academia. At that point one man discovered a thing, others want to break the ground to discover more. And, the movement exposed the many lies told by Muslim scholars. It then became an object of mockery. Because, the oil money attracted strangers to the Arab world, who then learned Arabic and have a copy of the Quran. I have 2 Qurans in my possession. One of my Arab friends moved out of our flat and left his Quran as an overload or excess. As I helped him pack, I told him to put his Quran in his suitcase but he asked me to keep it. It shows the utter lack of reverence he has for the Quran. This man took every essential but the Quran wasn't one of them as he moved to the UK for good.
The lies told by Muslims scholars overtime and made the Quran so illustrious is causing a damaging effect on Islam right now.

I am not a Muslim. A quick cursory glance at my profile will reveal as much.
Moreover, I have already specified that I do not care where you get your information, so my answer to your rhetorical question would obviously be "no".
Finally, your last paragraph reads like a conspiracy theory. To my knowledge, both sides have, regrettably, had a long and rich history of engaging in shitslinging fights over petty details and ritual practices. For one more antiquated example on the side of Christianity: "Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete, a Latin translation of the Qur'an by Rpbert of Ketton in 1110 AD. Even the title alone should be enough to tell you about how fairly and favorably the religion was portrayed. Anyways, my initial statement was that "...in my experience, Christians are especially annoying when they are trying to "debunk" Islam". I latter added to that statement by stating that Christians have a lot of anti-Muslim content on YouTube as an example.

Sixfiguresmart:
If I wanted to scare anyone off, I would even post a thing to begin with. I take outta my busy hours to do this. I say no lie. I worked In Arabia for 3 consecutive years and supposedly, I should know a thing or two, one would expect. From My expression you can tell if I am a copy and paste guy. Not to scare you off. I am not a scarecrow. I invited you to the conversation so why scare you? It is not a do or die affair. I do not hate Muslims. I live in the north and I love them. I have great friends who are Muslims. We argue and we fight over some topics but we are grown men. We keep our differences aside and take qawha

This is a very strange response. I said that I have no way of confirming any ornate details you tell me about yourself, because we are on the internet. You respond by providing me with even more details about yourself. Not to discredit you, but my point is that this is all irrelevant to me because, again, I have no way of actually confirming it. If this was a less "academic" discussion I would be able to ignore this point and believe you anyway just to be nice, but, since this is an academic discussion, I cannot do that.

Sixfiguresmart:
Bro, you cannot dictate a thing regarding your religion. That I know. Your Mufassir must be your guide. You may say what you want online but in the circle of Islam, you must follow the rulings or have yourself responsible for whatever ensues. Your job is to follow and not to question. If you do not take your Tafsir as automatic proof, that is fine. But, in this case I am not even quoting a Mufassir, I am quoting the Quran and the Hadith. Which is an autocratically accepted truth in the Islam.

I'm not a Muslim.

Sixfiguresmart:
If it is difficult for an Arabic speaker like me to understand, how could you yourself? I am a polyglot. I speak about 9 languages. I have been about. I am not here to brag but at least, I can read and speak Arabic. I was taught and I can understand. I wonder what it is that you want to present that ranks above my range of understanding.
Let's put it this way, if it is too difficult for your to explain, it simply means that you have ran out of ways to coin it. It is just above your level of sophistry. The reason why you have this much difficulty is because, you do not know how much resources I have or know. You would have simply coined this neatly to a lame head dude. The more you try to explain it, the farther you create another message that you may find hard to rewind. You have now gone 3 steps already discrediting your scholars on the internet. That is a huge problem created by you already. Because the tafsir that you are posting here was also written by another Mufassir who has tried to defend the Quran using that logic. Now, discrediting scholars, means discrediting the same guy whose tafsir is your comment.

Actually, it is not that uncommon for a speaker of a language to know relatively little academically about the grammar of said language. As an example, the average American cannot tell you what a relative clause is in a sentence, even though English makes frequent use of them. It's certainly not something that I would expect anybody walking on the road to know about, because it's linguistic jargon.

Well, what resources DO you know about? I stated that the etymology is uncertain because the claims that I've seen on its etymology are either outlandish or uncertain; that is, there is no satisfactory proof. Explain specifically what your problem is with this statement.

Sixfiguresmart:
Okay bro, tell me the origin of the Arabic language.
Modern European languages are derivatives of the Roman Latin.
Hebrew is a derivative of Aramaic. Now think, Arabic came up in the 3rd or 5th century. By this time, even Aramaic wade fading away and being replaced with Hebrew. By this time, even the Romans spoke Greek majorly except those in Europe who spoke Latin which wasn't as dominant as Greek given the Greek contribution in education. Now, given the region in which Arabic emanated, the dominant languages were the Egyptian and the Hebrew. Every other languages were formed during the construction of the tower of babel

Unfortunately, almost everything is wrong here.

Not all Modern European Languages are from Latin. The Uralic languages like Finnish, Sami, and Hungarian are not actually from Latin at all. English is not from Latin, either: It is actually a Germanic language, alongside German, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, etc. Greek is not from Latin - indeed, it was written even before Latin was, so that wouldn't make any sense (you even brought up Greek so I'm surprised you even made such a statement). Albanian is not from Latin either. These are all European languages, all modern, all currently spoken.

The Romans never majorly spoke Greek. Greek was the language of education so rich, educated people spoke and wrote in Greek - the same way that people of all tongues wrote predominantly in Latin in the medieval period. If the Romans majorly spoke Greek as you propose, there would be a lot more Greek daughter languages than there are Roman languages, but that is not the case.

Modern Hebrew is not a derivative of Aramaic. Hebrew as we know it was basically a dead language by the time Jesus was alive, so he spoke Aramaic, but they still spoke Biblical Hebrew liturgically - in their recitations and prayers. Modern Hebrew was made when many Hebrew groups in diaspora eventually settled into Israel and all agreed to use Hebrew as the lingua franca. Aramaic is RELATED to Hebrew, but Hebrew does not come from it, in the same way that Spanish and French are related but Spanish does not come from French. This does not require any knowledge in linguistics to know, just historical knowledge.

Arabic did not "come up" in the third or fifth century, it just wasn't recorded until then. The next thing I will hear you say now is that Yoruba did not exist until the white men came to Africa.

Lamom:
Hello peers


I have been observing this trend now and it has seen that it is a natural phenomena. Most couples whom i have seen online or heard offline after trying to give birth for years without getting one now gives birth to twins, Triplet and co . Is it that if they dont give birth,the woman's womb will keep holding on the eggs till years then release it when it meets a sperm?

Please is it a medical condition or natural?

I don't know, but it might just be a kind of information bias on your part.
Maybe you only remember the cases of infertile couples giving birth to twins because it is so remarkable, so you overestimate the actual amount of cases of that happening. Maybe you're mistaking several retellings of the same story as distinct, individual cases. Only way to be sure is to start recording it on paper.

OLAADEGBU:
Since the words "Trinity" and "Grandfather" are not in the Bible, should we conclude that those concepts don't exist?

My point was not that Trinity is not literally written in the Bible, therefore it doesn't exist.
My point is that the Trinity has no Biblical justification or basis, and thus it is a completely fabricated man-made idea.

Obafavour:
Atleast reading and meditating on bible we can see there's trinity in the bible e.g "matthew 28:19" that was jesus statement in that scripture.

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Indeed, that passage does reference the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, it does not say that they are equivalent entities. It does not make any claims about who they are at all. It just mentions their names in a particular order. Did it say "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, who are actually one entity"? No.

You say "e.g", so I will assume you have more examples. I can promise you here that none of them actually claim that they are equivalent entities.

Kobojunkie:
1. Biblical infallibility is of the doctrines and traditions of men, lies, as Jesus Christ warned - Matthew 15 vs 1 - 15 & Mark 7 vs 1 - 13. Jesus Christ taught His followers that the Word of God refers to the Words out of God's own Mouth - Matthew 4 vs 4

2. Trinity doctrine is also of men , an attempt by men to explain that which they have little to no true understanding of. That is not to say that Jesus Christ is not God. Afterall He did tell His followers that He is exactly that, oniy what He said was hidden from those who concocted the Trinity doctrines in order to provide alternative explanation to that hidden from them.

Personally, I don't understand why Trinitarians are so confused. It's like people don't read their bibles.
Jesus calls himself God, but he also quotes the scripture that says "you are gods" when the Pharisees ask him a question about him calling himself the son of God.
When saying the Lord's prayer, he also says "Our Father". If God is father to both himself and the disciples, then both Jesus and the disciples are sons of God. So it should not be surprising when Jesus calls himself the Son of God.

I try not to blame most people when they talk anyway. People just go to church to hear what they want to hear, say amen, and carry on with their lives. They want quick and easy answers, so instead of just reading and meditating, they would rather pay money for promised instant rewards.

Sixfiguresmart:
On one hand, you insist that we tale lessons from the net, yet again copying and pasting articles that YOU found on the net.

I am not a net jerk Sir. I live in Saudi Arabia and been taught Islam by sources more authentic than the onrs around you. I have paid attention before coming to a conclusion. You can bet that I speak and read Arabic too.

You may leave other topics outta this and focus on the question at hand. Too much said but little covered.
I never cared about Islam until it was served to me by Muslim sheikhs. Your brother demanding that I provide the meaning of Salah and I did from Islamic certified sources.

You are here debunking your scholars by devising an explanation that plunges you deep in this trench. The question is, who chooses the right context in the translation? That man becomes the allah.

You root word in Arabic etc are totally Bullsheet because Arabic is is a 1st or 4th century language Originating from Aramaic or so. Check the attached

E pain you .
I never even said it was YOU that did X and Y, I said that in my experience Christians do such things to Muslims with more fervour and passion than vice-versa. Just look up one or two Muslim videos on YouTube and the next thing you will start seeing is Christians "debunking" Islam en masse, but watching Christian videos you will rarely if ever see Muslim content. You never said where you did or did not get your information, so how should I know? I didn't check whether you copy and pasted.

Anyway, your attempts to possibly scare me off with your fake chestpuffing and "credentials" is completely fruitless, since we both know that I cannot verify whatever you are saying. This is the internet, so you or I could be lying about whatever claims we brag about. Thus, I do not care what credentials you may or may not have, since the information that you posted could be acquired by anyone on the internet who is diligent enough to read a few articles.

I don't take Islamic certified sources as automatic proof because they are obviously going to be biased towards an interpretation that would serve their religion, so the chances of truthful, unclouded research being done by Islamic sources on a word with as much religious important as Salah is very tiny. I would rather listen to Afroasiatic, Semitic, or Arabic linguists' opinions on the matter, preferably with papers for me to read and actually examine the claims. This is where most of my information on Arabic comes from, after all. If I ever considered Islamic certified sources, it would be rarely, when they somehow coincide with any other research I might be doing. Hence my claims on the actual meaning of the root being unknown.

This is not my explanation in the sense that it isn't an explanation at all. I simply stated that the etymology is uncertain. Most Islamic claims about the etymology are unfounded and far-fetched, and I have yet to see any convincing phonological justification for the core root meanings people have proposed. Is this too difficult for you to understand?

Your pet theory about Arabic being derived from Aramaic is laughable. I hope you are not just spitting nonsense here? Aramaic and Arabic are related, so they will obviously be similar in some ways, but that is not enough to prove that one comes from the other. A word being borrowed from one language to the other doesn't mean the entire language is from the other language. Igbo borrowed the word osikapa from Hausa shikanfa in pre colonial times, but those two are not linguistically related at all at all. English borrows words from other languages all the time too. If that etymology is correct (and the image only says it is PROBABLY correct), then since we know there were Jews living in Pre-Islamic Arabia, he could have gotten it from one of them. Same way the word "Injil" probably comes from the word evangelion in Greek, which just means "Gospel". Your picture doesn't prove what you are suggesting.

Some people will say that he died while ministering which is a good death to have. I would agree if he wasn't deeper life.

Sixfiguresmart:
What did we do? Did we break your eggshell?

Don't worry about my eggshell biko

Anyway, in my experience, Christians are especially annoying when they are trying to "debunk" Islam. Imagine a Christian that will not devote time to master Biblical Hebrew but will be rummaging through the Qur'an, taking mini Qur'anic Arabic lessons on the internet just so they can debunk somebody on Nairaland. Na wa o.

As one respondent has already previously stated, words are not often equivalent between language, for many reasons. I'm sure any bilingual individuals can come up with several examples of words that mean multiple things in one language, but are more specific in the other. It's not an odd thing at all.

In English, the word "prayer" comes from Latin precāria, the substantive feminine of the adjective precārius, which means something obtained by entreaty or by favor. The noun form, "pray" comes from a related word: precor, which means "to pray, beg, beseech". The archaic sense of "beg" is still preserved in older English phrases like "I pray thee" which just means something like "please".

In Arabic, ṣalat (صَلَاة) comes from the root ص ل و (s-l-w), whose meaning is ultimately unknown as of now. Some have linked it instead to the root و ص ل, which has the sense of "linking" or "joining", but I am doubtful. Anyway, since Salah refers specifically to the ritual prayers and not the average prayer (which is Du'a), it makes sense that it probably doesn't come from an easy source. It's inaccurate to simply translate as "prayer" for reasons specified by other comments.

Something similar happens in Biblical Hebrew, actually. The Modern Hebrew verb פילל (pilel) comes from the root פ-ל-ל (p-l-l). The root is used in 1 Samuel 2:25, where it says: אִם־ יֶחֱטָ֨א אִ֤ישׁ לְאִישׁ֙ וּפִֽלְל֣וֹ אֱלֹהִ֔ים וְאִ֤ם לַֽיהוָה֙ יֶֽחֱטָא־ אִ֔ישׁ מִ֖י יִתְפַּלֶּל־ ל֑וֹ וְלֹ֤א יִשְׁמְעוּ֙ לְק֣וֹל אֲבִיהֶ֔ם כִּֽי־ חָפֵ֥ץ יְהוָ֖ה לַהֲמִיתָֽם. Here, we're looking specifically at וּפִֽלְל֣וֹ (u-pillow), the fourth word from the right. Most times it means "to pray" but in this passage it means "to judge", and it is referring to God doing the action. This has also carried over into Modern Hebrew in the verb I mentioned above, which can mean "to hope, pray for, believe possible" but also "to judge, mediate". With your approach to translation, that passage would mean "If one man sin against another, God shall pray to him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him?"...

Sixfiguresmart:
Let us first look at the false english translation of the verse 33:56:

Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect [1]

And then look at the arabic version of the quran:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ ۚ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

The action words above are ‘yusallun’ and ‘sallu’. They both come from the exact same root word – salah. Ask any muslim what salah means, and they will answer ‘pray’. So, the verse actually say ‘Allah and his angels pray on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Pray on him and ask for peace for him’.

So, here we clearly see, that Allah actually prays on Muhammad! Not sending blessings on him, as the false translation wants us to believe. And the exact same action is done by the Angels. And on top of that, every muslim is commanded to do the same action! So, here we have Muhammad receiving the prayers from Allah, the Angels and every muslim. This shows us that Muhammad is the one receiving the worship of his false God.

If Allah was the true God, why would he pray for Muhammad? No true God would ever pray.
Who exactly is Allah praying to? Is he praying to himself?
If Allah was the true God, wouldn’t it be enough that Allah prayed for Muhammed? Why do do Allah need the Angels and the believers pray on him too?
Since Muhammed is the one receiving all these prayers, this shows us that Allah is but a toy in the hands of Muhammad.
If Allah and the Angels and the followers of islam are praying to Muhammad, are they not committing shirk (taking partners with Allah)?

Allah actually practise salat type prayer just like how muslims pray salat for allah.The difference is Allah prays for the prophet only.Its not the duah type prayer. Allah in this verse actually worshipped Mohammad by any type of salat just like how Muslims worship allah by salat Arab People 1400 yesrs ago didn’t have guts to challange quran.Mohammad probably brainwashed them to just believe it.No wonder why he had to come up with a command that apostates should be Executed.Muslim apologists succeeded to corrupt the quran.But why they still believe in islam knowing that quran has contradiction?Well its ignorance.Their belief that quran can’t be wrong this biase ignorant belief made them translate it to “send blessing” from “prayer”.lets say it should not translate to prayer,How do they exactly know that it should translate to send blessings?it can mean any other different thing like sending peace,sending sending sawab etc.Anyway,The most logical explaination is this verse says allah prays for the prophet but not dua type prayer.its a type of worshipping prayer.

you people sef eh...

kmaster007:
Ipob mehn

ipob ipob ipob, na only ipob dey for you people mind.
ipob made your employer fire you too abi?

The Trinity is probably the biggest, but there are others:

1. The cancellation of the old Law.
2. The belief that only faith is necessary to go to heaven.

Countless fake christian babalawo (a.k.a. MOGs) shenanigans would realistically also be on this list.

TenQ:
The English word God)/god is derived from an old Proto-German *ǥuđán. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)#:~:text=The%20English%20word%20god%20comes,got%20(Old%20High%20German).

This Word God/god in English is used for the Creator Deity as God and other Deities as god. In Arabic, the word Deity is Allah which is the proper name for their creator God. Arabic and Hebrew languages are both Semitic languages so that they are similar in many respect.

In the religion on the Jews, Eloha/Elohim simply means Deity (God): a title which translated into Arabic is Allah.

In the religion of the Jews, the proper name of the Creator Deity is Yahweh (יהוה‎). The proper name of the Jewish Creator God is so holy that the Jews would never speak it out in reverence (just as culturally, we never call our parents by their proper name but titles).

Similarly,

In the religion of the Christians, the proper name of the Creator Deity is Yahweh Or in the Latinised version Jehovah.

In the religion of the Muslims, the proper name of the Creator Deity is Allah


Unfortunately, in striving for legitimacy, Allah says in the Qur'an that he is the same as Yahweh the God of the Jews and Christians.

Qur'an 2:139
Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Dispute ye with us concerning Allah when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. We look to Him alone.

Quran 29:46
And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.

On the surface, the claim of Allah that Elohim/Eloha of the Christians and Jews is very True in the sense that they are equivalent. Just like Daddy, Mummy, President is equivalent and generic:
But when we say Daddy or Mummy or President , we want to know specifically which Daddy, which Mummy or which President.

For Islam, the question is more complicated because the proper name of their Creator Deity is Allah. Like you ask a child, what is the name of your mother and she replies Mummy! And you ask, what is the name of your father and she replies Daddy!

The problem is even more complicated because
1. The proper name of God Yahweh is not mentioned once in either the Qur'an nor the Hadiths. The name is unknown in Islam.
2. Ask any Moslem is they worship Jehovah: the answer will be a capital NO! In fact, a Moslem can be stoned to death for calling the name Yahweh in worship in the mosque.


If the above is true, does it not mean that Qur'an 2:139 and
Quran 29:46 are Taqqiyyas to decieve both the Jews and the Christians?

Secondly, if Moslems can confirm that their Allah is NOT the same as Yahweh the God of the Jews and Christians: would they be willing to re-examine their Faith?




How do you Moslems resolve the fact that Allah is not Yahweh?

Over to you!

AntiChristian:
compton11:
haekymbahd:
mhmsadyq:
alfarouq:
ictplotter:
Watinani:

At risk of sounding pedantic, I'd like to offer a slight correction. Allah is not the equivalent of Eloha, and Eloha and Elohim are not the same, either.

Allah is actually a shortening of Al-ʾilāh, where ʾilāh is related to and is the basic equivalent of él/elóah in Hebrew. The "al" preceding it is the definite article, so it means "the". Thus, "Allah" means "THE God". It's contextually specific enough for most people, so I don't understand what the point of this post was, to be honest.

Elohim is the plural form of Elóah. As far as I know, there isn't any agreement on why exactly the plural form is used here.

chuksanambra:
You Peter Obi lepers should go and tell your fellow criminals to release those people. Your secret has leaked, you are kidnapping people to raise money for Peter Obi.

how much agbado did they promise you for this post?
see mumu on display, abeg scatter jare

chuksanambra:
The kidnappers are part of the Obituary lepers.
They are trying to raise money for Peter Obi.

When criminals support you, they will help you the only way they know how to: through crime.

see how mad man just dey talk nonsense

Kobojunkie:
1. How can a book that contains errors and contradictions, lies - opinions of even - , be considered Holy? Where did God state this to be possible? Or is man's standard suddenly that of God's?

2. No where in scripture is it found written that scripture, written by the hands of humans in human is Holy aka in compliance with God's very own specification, so why do many cling to this idea going as far as to worship a book which is instead a compendium of books?

Modern day Christianity is a very confusing ideology. I don't know personally why people believe in Biblical Infallibility for example, though Jesus does make statements such as "heaven and Earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away". This will depend, of course, on the interpretation of "my word". Trinity believers must necessarily conclude that this refers to the entire Bible, but the Trinity is ironically non-Scriptural anyway.

ASAPFERG1:
Igbo amaka
I dont like igbos at all at all

god have mercy on you abeg. efulefu

Obafavour:
@brokeneggshell
I understand your point. But he intend to know more than the authors of the bible, i doubt if you'd been observing his comments even though not this topic.
And mind you bible is a Holy scripture, there can never be an error in the word of God. Those letters can't be referred to as mere letter because they carry the content of Jesus teaching e.g forgiveness, love, repentance and how to live our daily live in holiness. As i said it's by the inspiration of the holy spirit, and because it's the message of the holy spirit Jesus words should now be repeated everytime to everybody, no!!! It doesn't make sense. Holy spirit give different messages but none will contradict Jesus teaching so also is applicable to the apostles teachings, if it contradict Jesus teachings it won't be added to the bible.
@brokeneggshell

I agree with all you are saying, but the point I am making is that the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, etc. should not be considered as part of the Word of God because they are just letters that those men wrote. And since they are just the opinions of men like you and I, it should not be surprising that there are things that contradict Jesus.

Just because they carry the same content of Jesus' preaching doesn't make them the word of God. If you read the Qur'an, you will also see similar things there, but will you now say Muhammad was a man of God? If I read the bible and then made my own scripture with similar contents to Jesus' preaching, should you now consider it word of God? Jesus arrived on the earth and gave the perfect, immaculate message. He then died and was risen again, after which he gave the disciples a final charge and ascended to heaven.

Obafavour:
Your hypocrisy is high. The same bible u criticized because we follow paul teaching is d same book u found Jesus teaching SMH.

Not to intrude, but I don't think it's hypocrisy at all. Are you not aware that the books within the Bible were not written all together? Someone chose which books deserved inclusion, and which books did not. That's why there are problems like the book of Jude indirectly referencing the Book of Enoch which is not included in the typical Bible even though it was well known at the time of compilation, or like Paul and Peter (or even Paul and Paul) making contradictory statements left and right.

It's only the same Bible because the Christian community eventually decided that they should be in the same book, but that doesn't mean that you have to accept or reject all of them. The majority can be wrong sometimes, and in fact the Bible is full of stories of the righteous minority.

This is even more evident with the Epistles of Paul and the other disciples. Unlike the Gospel, which is a description of Jesus' life and ministry as recorded by eyewitnesses, the Epistles are just letters that these important leaders of the Church would write to different churches and individuals. They aren't gospel, nor scripture, nor divinely inspired in the same way that the other writings are, because they are just letters. The contradictions between letters just proves that they are just opinion pieces by the writers.

Did you ask God? Nna men.

Kobojunkie:
Paul, not Jesus Christ, is the one who supposedly authored the "titled" system of callings that are used in your churches today. Hence the confusion that is your churches since Jesus Christ never commanded such a thing. So, those of you who worship Paul's opinions, do so at the detriment of your relationship with Jesus Christ.

And if you think there are men who are exceptions to the rule, think again. All of your pastors and mogs have at one time or another transitioned from one title to another all in a big to claim more and more.

Thank you, I have recently been very confused recently as to the numerous contradictions between the letters of the epistles, and I had already realized that they were just personal opinions of the authors, but I still couldn't organize my thoughts on the issue. This has helped me fully clear my confusion on the issue.

I don't have anything to add to the discussion.