nicetohave:

but where are these people today who have openly ridiculed belief in God (not religion) and God himself?

Good point in making that distinction, nicetohave. I was hoping that soon many people would see that some of those who have an axe to grind with religion per se actually turn their muscles on deriding God Himself. And that is the hilarious thing; because if God doesn't exist, why all the clamour in being angry at Someone who is nowhere to be found? Why get angry at a 'No-thing', an 'illusion'? Or, is it that some evidence exist in their hearts and consciences, and they are hoping that He does not exist? bari_kade makes sense in asking the first caller to clearly state his purpose.

(*philipians 4:13 - I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.)


Luke 12:32 - Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

donnie,

Thank you for your explanations. However, you did not make a connection or answer my query as to the meaning of your first and last lines in your earlier reply: "Can a lion begin to claim that it is not in his nature to be carnivorous?" and "It was all forseen by God." The way you put it by making reference to Gen.16:12 seems that you were convinced that the verse was speaking of Islam. I'd appreciate an explanation to clear the air for me.

Thank U again.

Well, I thought that when you suggested that I picked up an original copy of the Bible, you might have one yourself before you could know that there was an original copy. I am aware of at least four English translations (three of which are in my library) of the Qur'an - YusufAli, Pickthal, Shakir, and Maududi. There's always a disclaimer by Muslim scholars and institutions using any translation of the Qur'an in any language, because they believe that "any translation of the Qur'an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form." Granted. However, if someone who's not versed in Arabic attempts to understand the literal word of Allah, how is this possible since the translation he or she would be using in any language "ceases to be the literal word of Allah" and so cannot be trusted as such? That is why those who attempt to quote the English translations of the Qur'an on this forum are not really quoting the word of Allah by that same rule.

As for the Bible, I may not have a copy of the "original" as they appear in the original languages. If that is an excuse for people to denounce the Bible altogether as the Word of God, I'd always ask them to kindly provide me with what they know to be the original Bible. Isn't it somewhat amusing that most religions claim that our Bibles have been corrupted from the original, and yet they don't know what the original really says? I don't take such claims to superior knowledge seriously until those who level such accusations are able to produce a copy of the original before they could say for sure that other copies have been corrupted.

I have more than five trusted translations on my shelf; but in comparing them and using study helps like Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, concordances and others, I could discern between what is true and what is spurious in the many "versions" that inundate the book market. Shades of meanings from the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) become less ambiguous and the truths come forth in a real sense. Jesus said in Matt.5:18 that till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle (smallest stroke of an alphabet) would not pass from the Law until all be fulfilled. That has been very helpful as a guide in my studies in seeking to better understand my faith in Christianity. The fact that the Bible has weathered multiplied attacks from various quarters down through the ages does not make it lose its authenticity of claim to divine and infallible revelation. What is important at the end of the day is whether one understands its message and seeks to obey its truths. I can guarantee you that the truths of the Bible have been proven in my life and experiences many times over - and I'm sure multiplied others know that the Bible most certainly validates its own truths in a very real sense.

A very pleasant week ahead to you.

I think it makes sense to keep up with the present various facets of the forum on religion. Muslims and Christians should each have separate fora to both promote their faith by sharing knowledge and understanding that are exclusive to either faiths. Many times, some Muslims may have questions for Christians and vice versa - they can then invite answers to their questions on the open or general forum on religion. Some atheists or skeptics may feel the need to ask questions about either or both faiths - that's why we have the general forum. But some Christians and/or Muslims who do not want their sensibilities insulted by the often rude language they read on the general forum would feel safer on their respective fora.

I'd vote for the present divisions of Muslim only_Christian only_and General discussion platforms. If people are not exposed enough to know what's happening, we religiously minded people should help ourselves by doing the advertising and inviting their discussions and inputs.

Seun, I believe you're doing a great job so far.

9ijaMan:

Once again I'll state that you do not need Holy spirit to understand the message of Islam. it's simple, practical, realistic and very just.

All one may ever need to understand the Qur'an may be some logic, but when you often make reference to the effect that one does not need the Holy Spirit to undertand the message of Islam, you sound like He's not important in matters of faith. If you're stating that (as you have done in several other threads), would one not draw the logical conclusion that you're trying to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit? You should note that by relegating the Holy Spirit this way, you fail to even recognise the respected role accorded him in the Qur'an. There's no need to often go to such lengths to make such statements, even if you are averse to Christianity.

9ijaMan,

No hard feelings and I don't take offense in anything you have said in your last post.    

I acknowledge that my responses may be somewhat strange to you or anyone; but they were written in defense of what so many Muslims call worse than 'harebrained' concerning Christian teachings in Islamic understanding. However, I did not try to give credence to the idea that "God died" in my writeups. I made reference to Biblical texts to show that Christ in His humanity was put to death in the flesh. If you failed to see the context in which Christ died (which to you seemed "certainly not possible", then the issues spiral out of the main topic into a discussion on the veracity of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let me extend an invitation to you to open another thread if you'd like to know more of what Christians think of the death and resurrection of Christ from the Biblical point of view.

I agree with your dictionary definitions of death only in a limited context. Some people may think of death as a permanent cessation of life in a biological or philosophical sense. In matters of faith (both Islamic and Christian), certain terms have different or more comprehensive meanings from the limited definitions given in the dictionaries. In this case, death in Christian theology carries other connotations than the dictionaries proffer. An example is found in II Cor.5:8 - to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. To further clarify this meaning of death, recall the teaching of Jesus Christ in Luke 16:19-31. There, you'll find that, even after the rich man and Lazarus "died" (in the sense of the cessation of biological life), they were yet conscious in the spiritual realm so that the rich man and Abraham had a conversation. So, I'll suggest to you that death goes far deeper in meaning than the three dictionary definitions that you delineated. And in that sense, my reply was aiming to demonstrate that Christ died for real in the flesh; but death in that sense did not necessarily mean that Christ was inactive for three days during His death. Christ in His humanity suffered death; but in His essential Person and divinity, He was very active beyond the grave.

Again, as you rightly pointed out, Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father: He did not send Himself. The difficulty in trying to understand the Trinity is that some often try to push the teaching in a Mathematical sense so far as would suggest Christians are worshipping three Gods - which is not true. I cannot exhaustively explain the fact that there is only ONE true and living God who is at the same time revealed in the Trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as Jesus plainly stated in Matt.28:19). But then, as a Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, the verses I quoted in my earlier reply are affirmations that Jesus Christ is Himself God and not merely a man. I might need to take a longer writeup to share with you about the Biblical teaching of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ if you so require of me.  

This brings us to the third objection: where was Jesus Christ in the time interval between His death and resurrection?
The following texts in the Bible show that (1) He first went to the lower regions of the earth -  "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (Eph.4:9). This lower parts of the earth in biblical language is not referring to '6 feet below the ground'; it is an expression of the reality of the spiritual and unseen world where spirit beings have their experiences. (2) In which case, we find what He was occupied with while in the spirit domains - "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (I Pet.3:19). By these texts it is clear that Christ was active even beyond the grave, so that death did not limit Him in the sense of its every day usage of the term.

"Have you ever attempted to pick up the Bible as it's written in it's original form?"
I'll be glad if you have a copy of the Bible in its original form to send to me. When people try to tell me that the Bible today cannot be trusted because it does not contain the Word of God in its original form, my question has always been that if they have one themselves that I could read, would they be willing to send me a copy? You see, the claim that the Bible is corrupt is untenable as far as this is just a claim by Islam or anyone else. those who make that accusation surprise me by not being able to produce a copy of the original Bible.

On the whole, I want to thank you for your questions and reasonable attitude in posing them. I do not find your language necessarily derogatory at this time and hope that we can mutually engage in any discussions without belittling one another's faith. If I have inadvertently upset you, I offer my apology upfront; and further objections you might have are welcome where I have overlooked any one you raised.

Many blessings.  

Exo.20:13 - "Thou shalt not kill."

It is God's prerogative to give or take life. "Thou shalt not kill" includes taking your own life or anyone's. What you have from God - your body and your life - are given to you for proper stewardship. Everyone will be required to give an account on Judgement Day for how he or she has spent his or her life (II Cor.5:10). What you are considering is an attempt at tampering with something sacred which God alone has sovereign rights over.

Tough times sometimes make us think of the impossible. Like Layi, I'll save the preaching and ask, "How may we practically help you?" Seriously.

As far as logic goes, you may have a point - and even so, it does not make any sense. Why? Logic should not be the ultimate yardstick of assessment in any field of experience: not even in science (as it deals with scientific facts and rejects what it does not understand [logic], and cannot measure); not even in aesthetics and the arts (the sense of beauty and apprecaition goes beyond logic). Logic could be applied in Mathematics and Philosophy; but even these tools are insufficient to fully explain the complexities of life and supernatural phehomena.

"The specific God of the Abrahamic religions as portrayed in their Holy books has been disproven."

How has He been disproven - "disproven" in the sense that He does not exist, or that He exists but not as portrayed in their Holy books? If He does not exist, then we are dealing with an atheistic challenge; however, if He exists but not as portrayed in their Holy books, it would make sense to give us an idea of how He exists, and tell us if you believe in your own portrayal of Him. Logic is a weak tool for measuring experience; and only people who hope that God does not exist will want to keep chanting that slogan.

9ijaMan,
My responses have been focused on the issues raised by kismat and anyone would see that there's been a  rational defence in my replies to her objections. Pardon me, but if what you had expected of me was to dance to your tune, you got it all wrong. What is wrong with long writeups anyway if it is necessary to comprehensively respond to  misconceptions? Secondly, I am not trying to defend Islam - I don't believe in the Qur'an, so I don't waste my time trying to quote it as if I do; neither do I want to take the position of interpreting the Qur'an for Muslims. My quoting the Qur'anic verses might get you miffed, but in so far as it makes my point, there would be no need for you to be rude by saying I was rambling. Further, if I went to a Jewish site, I only offered you the benefit of the doubt that my sources were not skewed or biasedly Christian - I am not a Jew; but informed Jews know their history so well, and that is what many Muslims refuse to admit. Besides, if kismat could go to any site in her replies, I see no reason why you should legislate against my doing so in order to show how she had misapplied theories. If truth is sincerely pursued, there would be no need to overreact. I have not attempted to subjugate Islam to Christian interpretations; neither should Muslims try to subject Christian teaching to Islamic interpretations. What you cannot understand does not necessarily become heresy simply because it does not conform to Islam.


Even then, carefully consider my response to your questions.

"If Jesus is God (as you boys claim), how come he died? can your God die?"
1.What is death? It is not the annihilation of existence. Jesus is the divine Word which Himself is God (John 1:1). He existed as God before the incarnation (Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:6). It would be impossible for someone who is divine to experience death in the state of his divinity alone. In order to do so, Jesus became a Man without sin - so that only in the flesh was He able to experience death in His redemptive work. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." (Heb.2:14). He would not need to die for Himself, because He was sinless. But His death was clearly pointing to His sacrifice for the salvation of sinners. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." (I Pet.3:18).

2. He died in the flesh, but that does not mean that He ceased to exist, as the Bible makes clear concerning His activities for the period of His vicarious death. Christ was actively engaged in His vicarious and redemptive work beyond the grave. "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" and "¹⁸For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: ¹⁹By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (Eph.4:9 and I Pet.3:18-19).

"And if He died (which is certainly not possible), who was then in control of the universe when he was momentarily dead?"
1. As God, He did not lose His control of the universe for a moment - whether during His incarnation or humanity, or during His death. How is that possible? First, the Bible states clearly that Jesus Christ is the divine Word (logos) of God (John1:1). In the power of His divinity, He is the Word that upholds all things - the very Power that brings things into existence and yet sustains them:

(a) "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John1:3)
(b) "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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col.1:17).

Death did not affect the real Personhood and Divinity of Jesus Christ. He whose name is "the Word" (Rev.19:13) and through whom all things were created, is the very same Who sustains all things, whether visible or invisible. That is why, even while put to death in the flesh, it was not possible for death to keep Him bound or limit Him in His loving sustenance and upholding of all things by Himself as Heb.1:3 points out.

Now, all this may sound heretical to Muslims just because it does not conform to Islamic teachings. Biblical Christianity (or even Judaism) does not have to be subjugated to Islamic interpretations in order to be correct or genuine. The Qur'an should not be the measure of all things; and that is the grave mistake that uninformed Muslims make in order to write off all other religions or faiths as heresy. If I attempt to do the same thing as subjecting the Qur'an to the Christian worldview, everyone knows that it will not pass the test.

There you go again nferyn. Who has disproven what - that God does not exist?

Sometimes, I think it's best for the sake of mutual respect to just ignore certain arguments, especially when the attitude of the enquirer is neither rational nor respectful. If enquiries are made without recourse to disrespect for other people's faith, I'd be most happy to engage the topic of discussion. I usually shy away from derogatory language in religious discussions so that I don't say things that will hurt anyone's feelings.

That said, let me point out a few things:

1. "Dont use these vulgar acts to justify why you are a christian or why Jesus never said he wasnt a God".
In what ways did my earlier reply sound like I was justifying my being a Christian because of anyone's vulgar acts, less so to justify Jesus being God? I think this is usually the problem that occurs when you read issues into people's threads. In my illustration, I demonstrated that the way you had argued earlier will always result in misconceptions. Go back and see the point in my writeup: "When you argue this way, you will continue to miss the point" and "See? That's not how to argue a case - you will not find a verse saying verbatim what you're asking the Bible to state." All I said was that you were not using a good argument in your earlier reply, and I illustrated that point by using a far-fetched issue in just the way you had done. You did not need to fly off the handle: there was nothing in my replies to show that I was justifying why I am a Christian by making recourse to "vulgar acts".

2. "Who or what are the attributes of God?"
I'm happy you asked, because you ought to have stated a few of those attributes yourself so that I have an outline of what you wanted me to respond to.

3. "It seems to me that you believe God begets (procreates, has/had sexually relationship) and from that act came Jesus." ____ "If Jesus is the biological Son of God, then God has dozen of sons."
Let me take you back again: nothing in my thread has remotely suggested that I believed "God has/had sexually relationship" with anyone to produce Jesus. Not one time. Your threads would have made sense to me if you only could keep my points in view and not put words in my mouth or read ulterior meanings into my replies. As concerning the word 'beget', the thought of God having sex with anyone (blasphemous as it is) did not originate with true Christians. As far as I know from literary works of historians (both secular and religious), it was infact a false accusation levelled against Christianity by __(guess who?)__ Muhammed himself! How is this possible? Muhammed did not like the idea of Jesus being called the Son of God; and in his theological persuasions, he thought that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity must mean that Christians were worshipping the Father, Mary the mother of Jesus (as God's wife), and Jesus. You won't have to let off steam again about this statement; but if you want some pointers, see here: http://muhammadanism.org/Trinity/default.htm. A direct verse in the Qur'an that infers this misconception of the Trinity by Muhammed is found in Surah 5:116 - "And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" Here it is clear that early Islamic concepts about the Trinity is that Mary was God's wife - something that did not originate with true Christianity. Heretical groups no doubt might have held to that belief; but Jesus' followers (the apostles and early Christians) did not teach God_Mary_Jesus as the Trinity. Neither did they teach that Jesus was the biological son of God.

4. "From my understanding and even according to the bible, the "sonship" attributed to God is not SON as in father/son relationship, but it was used by previous prophets and religious people to mean being holy or pious. Establishing some sort of bond with God that isnt human in nature."
Two issues are before us here: if you really believed this was the meaning of "sonship", why then did Muhammed and the Qur'an militate against the use of the term in Islam? If 'sonship' meant being holy and pious, why then was Muhammed not called the son of God in the Qur'an? Or do Muslims not believe that Muhammed was pious? You see, that reasoning is unsubstantiated in the Bible nor in the Qur'an. The reason why the term 'Son of God' does not appear in the Qur'an as a title of any prophet is that Islam did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God; and secondly, because the term did not mean "holy" or "pious". Again, you were right, though, in stating that "sonship" referred to some sort of bond with God that isn't human in nature - more accurately, as used of Christ being the unique Son of God, it points to His divinity.

5. "Well how can God have a beginning and an End? Is this one of the attributes of God in christianity? A born God and Died God?"
If you read my post just above, you'll understand that "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last" do not mean the same thing as God having a beginning and an End. Christianity does not teach such as any attribute of God. God is eternal, without beginning or end. However, 'first and last' mean something more and other than you had overstated. "I am the Beginning and the Ending" is not the same thing as "I have a beginning and an ending". These terms are not peculiar to the Revelation, and it has more of the meaning of Christ being the Source as well as the Perfecter of all God's work: He gives them their origin, and at last He brings all things to their ultimate culmination. Other terms akin to these are: "author and finisher of our faith" (Heb.12:2), etc. See my reply just before this for further explanation.

6. "an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. "
First, I would have expected you to state who the real author is if different from John the apostle. It is as easy for some 'Muslim' scholar to come up and discredit certain Qur'anic texts without proffering the authentic ones. Dionysius expressed his personal views, and even then could not suggest who the real author of the Revelation is - and you quoted him as if he was speaking for everyone. Dionysius' comment about the authorship of the Revelation, however, does not hold true; and several Bible scholarships have been produced to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that John was indeed the author.

7. (c) Because Jesus claimed the same status in divine worship as the Father in John 5:23.
"This is the same with Muslims and Jews."
Actually, as far as I know, you're the first Muslim to make that claim to me on the subject. If you had carefully weighed my statement ("Jesus claimed the same status in divine worship as the Father in John 5:23", I'm sure you would not want me to assume Muslims believe that Muhammed claimed the same thing as Jesus did in John 5:23. I stand to be corrected in saying that Muhammed could not have made such a claim because he was no more than a man; but I'll be happy to have you quote me a few verses from the Qur'an that infact Muhammed "claimed the same status in divine worship as the Father" (or as God).

However you look at the issue, you cannot fault Christianity by subjecting the Bible or Christian doctrines to the Qur'an or Islamic interpretations. As long as you do this, you'll always arrive at completely slanted meanings of Biblical teachings, principles and practices. The Bible is unique in itself and invites genuine enquiries from anyone willing to know its truths. Jesus Christ gave one condition for understanding the truths He taught in the Bible: "If any man will do his (God's) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17).

Softee: A lot of people find understanding the Roles of Jesus and God confusing. Jesus is not God.

As a Christian, this is what my Bible tells me about the divinity or deity of Jesus Christ: Jesus is God.

1. The Son who was prophesied to be given will be called "The Mighty God" - a title that is not given to any other man: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6).

2. Isaiah again prophesied that He would be recognised as "Immanuel" (that is, "God with Us" - which is the name He was called when He was born: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. 7:14; compare Matt.1:23)

3. The title "Word" is used both as referring to Jesus and pointing out that the same "Word" is God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) There is no doubt that the 'Word' is Jesus Christ Himself as Rev.19:13 shows - "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Rev. 19:13).

4. Micah prophesied that the Messiah had been existing from eternity - that is, He did not have a beginning: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Mic. 5:2)

5. Jesus used divine titles for Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Rev.22:12-13). The titles "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last" do not mean that Jesus had a beginning in His deity, nor that one day He would cease to exist. There was a time when He became what He was not - He became man (John 1:14); but He was existing long before He was born in the flesh. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and as so used of Christ in the Bible, it means that all things have their beginning and completion in Him. ("beginning and completion" in this context does not mean that evil began or will be completed in Christ). Another way of applying these terms is in Heb.12:2 where Christ is called the author and finisher of our faith. Again, as pertaining to the fact that all things subsist in Christ, one needs only read other scripture verses that bear this out: "All things were made by him (alpha); and without him was not any thing made that was made (omega)." (John 1:3); "And he is before all things (alpha), and by him all things consist (omega)." (Col. 1:17); etc.

No other prophet was given these positions or titles; none could have claimed them for himself. Because of who He was and is, only Jesus Christ could make such high claims without infringing on divine prerogative.

Rhoda_babe!!   

I always enjoy your cracks,,, .

In addition, I'll add just one word - humility. The "poor in spirit" is the direct opposite of being "haughty in spirit."

"And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down." (2Sam. 22:28)

"LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." (Psa.131:1)

"Can a lion begin to claim that it is not in his nature to be carnivorous?"

Donnie,

when you wrote that line above, what were you trying to say? And when you subscripted your writeup with "It was all forseen by God", were you not relating it to Islam? My point is that informed Muslims will tell you that the verse did not speak of Islam, but the character of Ishmael as a person.

Second, I do not take my definition of any religion from the mouth of passers-by. I have contacts with many informed Muslims and they vehemently deny that Islam is in the Bible (which is what I believe). They do not deny the connection with Ishmael and Abraham, but they don't see your quote of Gen.16:12 as indicative of Islam. Infact, someone (a pastor) I spoke with recently about that verse asked me to study my own Bible (!) because God was not describing the religion Islam there. You're making a huge mistake by misinterpreting that verse as pointing to the violent nature of Islam; because if you believe Islam is in the Bible, you will need several other verses to show that Islam is in the Bible. Why? Because, the rule for understanding a prophecy is not to look at just one verse and interpret it on its own! The apostle Peter said: "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (II Pet. 1:20); so you would need to bring more verses in the Bible to show that your interpretation of Gen.16:12 stands.

As for the Abrahamic covenant, you make me laugh! You supposed you had found a pupil for your next Sunday school enrolment. I knew about all those subjects before you came up to needlessly paste your poor scholarship. You'd not need to take it personally, but if I failed to understand your point in the Gen.16 quote, I offer my apologies upfront and appeal that in future, you make some sense than floating replies.

kaygirl,

God is not stereotyped; and sad to say, many times some people (MOGs - men of God) would wish to be His 'private confidant'. It is true, and I believe, that some people could meet their soulmates through such direct prophecies - describing most things from name, background, profession, character, to spiritual maturity, etc. But that is not the rule of thumb.

Abraham was called a friend of God in the Bible; but when he was seeking a bride for His son Isaac, the old man did not receive any direct prophecy about names or stuff. He simply sent his servant - and Rebekah became the wife of Isaac. (Gen.24:67).

Apostle Paul recommends that Chrsitians should seek believing spouses, but he did not make any recommendations as to 'how' to do this. He only said that such people are free to marry whomsoever they want to, as long as it is in the Lord. (see I Cor.7:39).

I once knew of someone who was being wooed by a guy. Granted, that gal's pretty. But seeing that he was losing grounds, he came up with the 'prophecy' formula: "You know, God revealed to me that you are the one. After fasting and praying for days, I saw your face three times in my dream." The sista in question smiled and reminded him that the Bible's rule of judging a 'prophecy' was that every word was to be established by the testimony of two or three people. Since he was just one in his prophecy, she would need time to confirm it for herself - and if God did not tel her so, he would be wasting his time. Today, she's happily married to someone else.  

donnie:

Can a lion begin to claim that it is not in his nature to be carnivorous?

Genesis 16
  12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren

It was all forseen by God.

So, wait a minute: are you trying to say that Islam was spoken of in the Bible? Not many Christians would agree with you, nor would you find intellectual Muslims agreeing with anyone saying that Islam is found in the Bible. The fact that Ishmael was spoken of in Genesis should not tempt you to assume that God was referring to Islam there or anywhere else. God spoke of Ishmael concerning his nature (or character) as a person - not concerning his religion.

Let me ask you: if Islam was what God was prophecsying or speaking about in Gen.16:12, then consider the following:

(a) why would God have had to allow Abraham to send Haggai and Ishmael away? (Gen.21:12-13).

(b) was Islam prophesied by God as a religion to rise after Christianity had been established by the Son of God? If this is the view taken, does that not suppose that you might be saying the covenant of Jesus' blood did not establish an everlasting redemption, and therefore there was a need for a new religion to emerge?

(c) if still, God was ever speaking of Islam in Genesis, what would be the rational for allowing His Son  Jesus Christ to be crucified in order to provide redemption for man, and then turn around and bring in a violent religion?

I believe God could not have been contradicting Himself in the Bible; and to say that Islam was spoken of in Genesis is exactly the sort of propaganda some Muslims are looking for. If Islam is violent in nature (and there are more than one Qur'anic verses to persuade one about that), it does not mean that its violent nature derives from the Bible. Nowhere would you find Islam prophesied in the Bible.

Me, too

bari_kade,

No, I'm not a Catholic; but then I agree with you that not every Catholic priest was involved in some of the unfortunate incidents in Catholic history. chrisd might not have a marriage problem as such, but all these issues have been borne out of personal grievance against non-Catholic Christians on baseless grounds. I hope we can all have a sense of mutual respect for one another; and I apologise where my statements might inadvertently have been offensive.

Put words in your mouth about what? So, tell me, what is the meaning of this that you posted?

gigitte:

also when the church provides evidence from the bible and interprets it in a certain way, who are you to come and say 'that is not what it means' , are you God what makes your own interpretation more valid

Did that not sound like you were challenging the interpretations of others? If you didn't expect a response to your post, you didn't need to have had that line in your earlier reply.

I'm not interested in arguments of any sort - translation or otherwise. For one, if you're asked to make a direct quote for whatever you'll be posting, I don't want to be disappointed over and over again with your tradition. So, many thanks. I'd rather be occupied with inputs that make sense.

bari_kade, I'm sorry that you posted those links for the scandals in the Catholic church. I'd advise that you don't let the accusations of some 'Christians' push you to the wall. Anyhow, that is just my opinion: it's not helping the case for building faith. I do hope, however, that chrisd would be more rational in future posts.

gigitte,

Predictably, you disappoint me. Since you challenge the protestant interpretation of the Bible and no one's interpretation is more valid than yours, I only asked you to quote one reference from your Catholic Bible, and all you came up with is this lame excuse?

In return, I would gladly have quoted the references from the Bible you asked concerning gay marriages, wearing of earrings and women wearing trousers - if only I made reference to them in my reply earlier. Since I did not, I don't owe you zit on that.

As for chrisd, whatever his palava and your sympathy for him, his experiences do not give him the license to bad-mouth fellow Christians. Perhaps, a lot of believers have been patient with him up until now, but if he has made it his prerogative to continue the use of sorry language on fellow Christians, he should realise that there's a limit to tolerance on that.

chrisd,

You did not address my question. I wanted a direct quote from gigitte in the Catholic Bible with the 10 books where the word "Pope" was used as a direct title for Peter in the Church. No tradition, no interpretation - just one verse in your own Catholic Bible.

chrisd:

I think the most important fault within your entire movement is the religious power and authority most of your congregations instill within the local pastor -- ,,, He is an authority unto himself and to his God, and many And most of you church-goers literally believe that his words uttered in sermons, prophecies, etc., are the literal words of God

It works in exactly that way in your own orthodox or Catholic movement. When the Pope of your enclave makes utterances, how do Catholics regard his words? What is the meaning of the 'Vicarius filii Dei' that the Pope wears on his headdress? See, chrisd, common sense is obviously not so common with you. I'm sorry if that offends you, as that is not my aim here. But a word of advice before you post your next silly tale: you cannot promote your own faith by presuppositions that have no basis in the Bible. If only you looked carefully in God's word, you'll see that God is not taken by surprise in what's happening, and there are lots of verses that show clearly that charlatans and greedy money grabbers would emerge to twist the message of Christianity in order to make fast buck. I'll reference just a few here for you: Matt.7:15 and Acts 20:29.

So, what then? In such a state of affairs, it does not help to define Christianity solely on the basis of the Catholic tradition or what people are doing in so-called protestant movements. You'll gain a more sure foundation if you take the definition of the Christian faith from the Bible itself - from what Jesus taught and the apostles practised. Failing to do so, your prescriptions will be a wash and your outlook on Christianity will remain ever so conflagrant.

Now, the mystery of your 2% top level,,, I take it that you've always given the impression that you are Catholic; so it only makes me wonder if your own Catholic version has so failed you inspite of the original version of your own Bible with 10 additional books, that you now resort to the flavour of "exploring" Islam. I wish you all that you wish yourself in that adventure. However, when you arrive and begin to wonder about the surprises, note that Islam will NOT tolerate your criticisms (except, I fear, you'll be asking for a straight ticket to your grave).

gigitte:

finally, all this 'it is not in the bible' does not hold water, because the catholic church does not believe in sola scriptura, it also believes in tradition.

This is interesting in so far as you can provide a rational basis for your own position as better than the Protestant persuasion. People may have different interpretations of the Bible (and other 'holy books' of the various faiths in the world), but I'd like to ask a question: why is it that as a Catholic or orthodox, chrisd takes it upon himself to hate fellow Christians? I have read his threads where he has used words like 'bastards' and 'pentecostals wacks' to belch out the hate in his heart towards Christians, and he feels cool about it. It does not matter what his interpretation of the Bible is, but is John 15:12 & 17 not in his own Catholic version of the Bible with 10 x 10 books? Since the Catholic church does not believe in sola scriptura but holds to traditions as well, is hate part of that tradition that someone like chrisd would use language like that and still claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ?

gigitte:

the catholic church does not believe in sola scriptura, it also believes in tradition. it maintains that the peter was the first pope and thus the church has existed since peter. also when the church provides evidence from the bible and interprets it in a certain way, who are you to come and say 'that is not what it means' , are you God what makes your own interpretation more valid

I'd be happy if you can quote me a few verses that clearly calls Peter the first pope of the Church. Since nobody's interpretation is valid than your own version as a Catholic, please don't try to interpret anything - just give me the direct quote in the Catholic Bible (including the 10 remaining books) where the word "Pope" was used as a title for Peter in the early Christian Church.

Amen. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

kismat,

I did not see that you had replied to my post earlier until someone pointed out to me that the thread has been taken to the 'Islam for Muslims' forum. That aside, I wonder if you are asking questions in a spirit of genuinely seeking answers or you would prefer long-drawn out arguments that could leave people trading insults on Muhammad and Islam the way you take the liberty to do so here on Christianity. I should not be obliged to answer your petty mischief, if it were not that you've twisted matters to unbelievable proportions. I'd rather avoid the silliness of your purpose by not indulging in the same lack of respect you have displayed.

However, let me extend to you a simple antidote for your problem: don't try reading the Bible with the aim of deliberately looking for faults - there could be even more glaring faults in your own Qur'an than you might realise, regardless of any arguments that you may have to the contrary. I'll save you the headache by avoiding the same attitude you took; but if you really want to know, I'll be most happy to post you a few. However, in the spirit of humility that Jesus Himself exemplified, I'll point you to answers in the Bible that you either missed or simply did not take the time to see:

1. When Jesus said, "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30), you took that out of context to mean that He was impotent - as if He was actually not able to move a limb. If you had read that verse in its context, it is clear that He was pointing to the fact that He was not acting on His own initiative. He did not come of His own accord, neither did He come to do His own will. It was the Father's will He came to do; and that is why He could not do anything that would conflict with the will of the Father. That is why in that same verse, Jesus said: "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." I see that you only quoted part of the verse so that it sounded to you like Jesus was powerless to even breathe. No wonder you missed the point.

       kismat:
       Did Jesus ever say "I'm God"? If you quote me that directly from the bible, i'll become a Christian. No Joke.

2. When you argue this way, you will continue to miss the point. How many things do Muslims do in the name of Allah that he categorically or directly stated in the Qur'an that we see happening today? One example is the killings and rampage that we've seen the last few weeks under the facade of 'protecting the honour of the prophet.' Now my challenge has always been that any Muslim quotes just one verse in the Qur'an that directly says, "Muslims should kill anybody who cartoons Muhammad." I'm still waiting ever since I posed that question. See? That's not how to argue a case - you will not find a verse saying verbatim what you're asking the Bible to state.

But then, why do I as a Christian believe that Jesus Christ was more than a man?

   (a) Because Jesus called Himself the "Alpha and Omega", and "the First and the Last" in Revelation 1:11 & 17. Notice that "First and Last" is the very title that God used for Himself in Isa.41:4. Apart from several other verses in both the Old and New Testaments that show clearly that Jesus Christ was God Himself, perhaps for many people (like me), no other verse speaks more effectively than one in which Jesus Christ was heard calling Himself by divine titles - as in the verses above.

   (b) Because Jesus claimed equality with the Father in John 10:30 when He said, "I and my Father are one." No man has ever claimed the same status as Jesus did like in this very provocative and yet profound statement. It was clear that Jesus claimed to be God in that verse, because the reaction of the Jews showed that they got exactly that meaning in His statement, and therefore wanted to stone Him (see John 10:31ff). Now if Jesus thought He was misunderstood, would He not have attempted to correct their impression by denying the claim of divinity? But no, He did not deny the meaning of His statement, but rather challenged the Jews.

   (c) Because Jesus claimed the same status in divine worship as the Father in John 5:23. He could not have claimed the same honour as with the Father if He was merely a man. In effect, Jesus was saying that anyone who brings honour to God (the Father) without honouring the Son in exactly the same way, has infact not honoured the Father.

It's going to be a very difficult thing to wrestle with if you're bent on controversy; but here you have a few texts in the Bible that will help answer your question about the fact that Jesus claimed He was God. I do believe that if you're sincere in your challenge to see in the Bible where Jesus said He was God, the above will convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt that He made that claim as clearly as daylight. What would you now do with the "No Joke" in your reply to become a Christian?

If you would seek God in the same way that you challenged me to do before going to bed, I guarantee you that He will show you the power of His love in Jesus Christ - much more than I can ever tell you here. God bless.

Did i call any fake preacher's name?,,,I am not denying the fact that i have passed judgement. And mine is a  righteous one,

Donnie, please don't confuse yourself. You're making two contradictory statements in one breath: you've clearly passed judgement unfairly in the same way that you accuse people who do not agree with your views, whether or not you named names of any preacher - fake or genuine. If it's wrong for others to have passed judgement, is it right for you to do so because you claimed to be under the influence of the Spirit? How are you sure that the opinions of others who disgree with you were not voiced under the same influence you claim?

      But if you are  christain, act like one. Judge under the guidaince of God's Word and not 'hearsay'.
   
This is the kind of lopsided views that amaze me. Where did I state that I was judging under 'hearsay', or even that I was judging at all? If this is what acting like a Christian is, I'm sorry to say that your brand does not appeal to me.

      It shouldnt be your aim to judge him.

Then I wonder why you take it upon yourself to be his personal bodyguard and chief inspector of spiritual police on this forum. It seems that anyone who expresses a view you don't like about TB Joshua immediately gets your nerves rattled and itching for your horsewhip. You necessarily have something to say almost to the effect that nobody's allowed to say anything contrary to yours. The tenor of my posts have been simply to state that it was uncouth for any pastor to use uncivil language in addressing people, as secret_447 did. Not only was he breaking the law of decorum on Nairaland Forum, but he was not keeping to the character of the badge he claimed as pastor.

What is ever so astonishing to me is that you said nothing as regards what I was addressing. You could not find a verse in all your guidance of God's Word to justify a pastor openly calling people "retarded" with emphasis. I couldn't care less about what TB Joshua means to you; but if you want to make this thread your second home with padlock in hand, please put up a signpost and let's know that only those who curry your outlook are welcome to visit this topic. And I hope they certainly don't mind being called retarded or any other gutter names that suit the new wave of pastors as __.

Well, thanks,,,and I throwey salute to U too.

I've got to run along for evening fellowship right now, then I'll be back to post something. In anycase, I don't believe that the Allah of Islam is the same as the God in Christianity. I'm taught to respect the faiths and ideologies of others, but not to syncretize them. Hope you've had a good Sunday