Empiree's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Empiree's Profile › Empiree's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 (of 775 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 6:59am On Mar 01, 2015 |
malvisguy212: malvisguy212You don't understand anything at all. Do you actually believe religious Books descended from the sky? Man, you need elementary studies all over. And you are the same fellow quoting hadith and Qur'an like you are the custodian?. Chai, funny dude ! Yes, don't reply me. You peeps trying to be smart. You guys can't stand my argument NEVER. Now that you have conceded defeat, 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 6:15am On Mar 01, 2015*. Modified: 4:07am On Mar 02, 2015 |
[size=15pt]How Did They Know What Jesus' teachings Were Or Did They Make Them Up (or write down what other people made up)?[/size] As noted above, we can discern earlier texts behind the gospels that we have today and we know they used earlier sources. Luke's gospel tells us as much: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4) So here the writer notes that others have written account before him and that these were based on traditions handed down (orally and perhaps also in written form) from "eyewitnesses". He is proposing to write an "orderly" version of these accounts. He is making it clear that his account is at least at third hand, or even more removed from the events. And we can see that he uses Mark as his main source, since about 60% of Luke is directly from Mark. He also uses material that was used (unknown to him) by the writer of Matthew as well, the material we refer to as "Q". The Q material does seem to have been at least partially textual and was possibly more than one text. It was made up substantially (though not wholly) of sayings of Jesus. There is other material that is unique to Luke's gospel that scholars differentiate from the Mark material and the Q material by calling it "L". Whether this was another text or texts, oral traditions or invention by the writer of Luke is unclear. The gospel of Matthew gives is clear indications of a similar construction, using Mark, Q and some unique material ("M" ). Behind Mark is at least some written material in Aramaic, since the gospel's writer makes some mistakes that can only be explained by him misunderstanding an original Aramaic text. The gospel of John seems to be based on other texts now lost. They touch on some of the same stories as the other gospels (though not many) but tell them in ways so different that they seem to have been different texts. There are whole libraries of books written on these questions and a vast array of opinions, so I have tried to summarise the scholarship that is (i) agreed by most experts and (ii) not coloured by religious biases. The books of Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen go into far more detail and would point you to the scholarship in question if you want to explore further. Beware books by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalist apologists though - they have an obvious religious agenda. The Quran says that the current Torah, Psalms and Gospel (the New Testament) have been badly corrupted. Numerous passages of the Quran refer to man’s distortion and alterations of the previous books of revelations from Allah. These passages in the Quran note that the received books by the People of the Book, The Jews and the Christians, do not conform to the original revelations that were given to Moses, David and Jesus. The following verses from the Quran are among the more direct in addressing this distortion of the prior books of Allah. Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?....So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. (Quran 2:75,79) There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Quran 3:78) And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made! (Quran 3:187)"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." (Quran 5:13-14) "No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling."(Quran 6:91) There are of course many other passages in the Quran which say the Bible has been corrupted. Where the Hadith say the Bible has been corrupted The Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad in Islam) as well point out to Biblical Corruption. Consider these hadith: Narrated Abu Huraira: The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12) Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461) Next.... Scholars of the Bible say the Bible has been badly edited and corrupted over time... 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 5:51am On Mar 01, 2015 |
The writings in the New Testament which are closest in time to the death of Jesus are the letters of Paul. Only seven of these are considered genuinely by Paul himself: First Thessalonians (c. 51 AD) Philippians (c. 52-54 AD) Philemon (c. 52-54 AD) First Corinthians (c. 53-54 AD) Galatians (c. 55 AD) Second Corinthians (c. 55-56 AD) Romans (c. 55-58 AD) The earliest of the gospels seems to have been Mark, written sometime after and probably close to 70 AD. It was then used as one of the sources for the next gospels, Matthew and Luke, which were written independently using Mark and at least one other shared source (now lost) that scholars refer to as "Q". Both Matthew and Luke seem to have been written in the 80s AD. The latest of the gospels is John, which seems to have been written no earlier than 90 AD judging from internal evidence, though it could have been as late as 120 AD. Acts seems to have been written by the same writer who wrote the gospel of Luke and, again, it seems to have been written in the 80s AD. The rest of the New Testament dates to the very end of the First Century at the earliest or, more likely, the first decades of the Second Century. Conservative fundamentalists dispute all these dates and try to argue for much earlier ones, but I've summarized the consensus of critical scholarship on the question. "What do we know about the authors?" In all cases, very little. We know most about Paul since he gives us a few details of his life in his seven genuine letters. He seems to have been a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin who was born in Tarsus in what is now Turkey and who studied with the famed Pharisee Gamaliel in Jerusalem before converting to the Jesus sect as a result of some kind of visionary experience. The writer of Mark seems to have been a non-Jew and he gets some of the geography of Palestine wrong, indicating that he is getting his information second hand. He is clearly writing for a non-Jewish audience as well, since he regularly explains Jewish ideas and customs. Christian tradition says he was a follower of Peter in Rome and got his information from Peter himself. There is evidence that this may be at least partially true, since this gospel contains evidence that at least some of it was translated into Greek from an earlier Aramaic source or sources. Romans feature in several of this gospel's stories and are always depicted in the best possible light, so it is likely it was written in Rome for an audience of Roman converts. The writer of Matthew was not Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. He relied heavily on the gospel of Mark as his main source - 75% of Matthew is directly from Mark, usually verbatim - and it makes no sense that an eyewitness would rely so heavily on the work of someone who was not there. He also used the now lost document or documents we call "Q" and some unique material. He was likely a Jew and was heavily concerned with showing that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish scripture, sometimes going to absurd lengths to tell or invent stories that have Jesus "fulfill" various prophecies about the Messiah. Despite this he does not seem to have been literate in Hebrew, since he used the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, to refer to these prophecies. The writer of Luke was the most literary of the gospel writers, though even his style was not exactly highly polished. Like the other gospel writers he would have been well-educated though not a top ranked scholar (who tended to be aristocrats, since others didn't have the time or resources for that level of study). Like all of the gpospel writers, he was certainly not a peasant and was probably not a Jew, which rules out any of Jesus' earliest followers as writers of these texts. He affects the style of a historian, though his works are, like the other gospels, devotional polemic rather than history. He also makes several historical errors. The writer of John was almost certainly not a Jew and actually casts "the Jews" as the villains of his story. Where the earlier gospels tend to differentiate between the various Jewish factions that questioned or opposed Jesus (the Pharisees, the scribes and elders, the Saducees), in the final gospel they simply become an amorphous mass called "the Jews". This gospel also claims Jesus and his followers were excluded from synagogues by "the Jews". This is contrary to all the other gospels and seems to be an anachronism. The Jesus sect was only excluded from synagogue worship much later, after 90 AD, and this gospel seems to have been written after then and reflect increasing distance and conflict between the Jesus sect and the rest of Judasim as the former increasingly became a separate, non-Jewish religion. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 5:33am On Mar 01, 2015*. Modified: 4:14am On Mar 02, 2015 |
Discrepancies And The Holy Spirit Irrespective of the above, Christians argue that the authors of the Gospels and in fact the authors of all the books of the Bible, were guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be in error regardless of who wrote the words. We would like to throw out just a few of the discrepancies that one finds between the same story told by the different authors. For example, the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different from each other. In addition to major discrepancies in Luke’s and Matthew’s versions of the birth of Jesus, and his family’s relocation from Bethlehem to Nazareth, there are historical problems. These include the nature of the miraculous star in Matthew that leads the wise men to the exact location of Jesus’ birth, and the census in Luke that required knowing where one’s ancestors were from. Moreover, this census involved the entire Roman Empire, and there is no account of such a huge census anywhere except in Luke. The genealogy of Jesus given to us by Matthew is much different that the genealogy given by Luke. John has Jesus teaching for three years; Mark, Matthew and Luke present a one year ministry. Mark and Luke follow this with an account of teaching and healing in Galilee, then a trip to Jerusalem where there is an incident in the Temple climaxing with the crucifixion on the day of the Passover holiday. John, by contrast, puts the Temple incident very early in Jesus’ ministry, has several trips to Jerusalem, and puts the crucifixion immediately before the Passover holiday, on the day when the lambs for the Passover meal were being sacrificed in Temple. And the accounts of Jesus’ death in Mark and Luke are strikingly different. Additional Proof Can be Found Here A 606 page treatise entitled The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulorigin.htmlcompletely presents the evidence for the fact that the Books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written by who Christians think they were. The book presents massive evidence from real biblical scholars (those who did not attend Moody Bible College or Dallas Theological Seminary, et. al.) that the authorship of the Gospels is unknown. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 5:29am On Mar 01, 2015 |
So, Who Wrote Mark and What Were His Sources? Not even the Bible claims that Mark was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry. Modern, non Christian biblical scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). These stories were in circulation year after year, told in different languages and in different countries from that of Jesus. That’s it. The source for the gospel of Mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. In other words, all of Mark’s sources were at best, second hand, more likely fifth or sixth hand. What happens to stories that circulate orally for years? Obviously, they come to be changed in the retelling. Thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay. Apologists dismiss the charge of “hearsay” by pointing to the strength of the “oral tradition”. The simple childhood game of “Telephone” is sufficient to illustrate the point that stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content. The Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from Jesus. We question how authentic these quotes could possibly be, given the convoluted path from Jesus’ lips to “Marks” wax tablets and the years that passed since the words were allegedly spoken. We have written a treatise on the impossibilities of Jesus’ actual words being accurately recorded 40+ years after they were spoken. Who Wrote Matthew and What Were The Sources? By the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line “The Gospel According to Matthew” began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—fifty five percent of the gospel is copied from Mark, and it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry would need to rely on others for information about it. They believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. A widespread theory holds that the author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called “Q“, and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called “M”, some of which may have originated with Matthew himself). He wrote for a Jewish audience: like “Q” and “M”, he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law; unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus’s ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews. The fact that his linage differs significantly from that of Luke is a real problem for those who claim that the Holy Spirit’s hand guided the writers of the gospels. The content of “M” suggests that the community for which this gospel was written, was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in “righteousness” (adherence to Jewish law); and of the three only “M” refers to a “church” (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order. Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100. Who Wrote Luke and What Were the Sources? Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document for many of Jesus’ teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records. Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s, while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century. While the traditional view that Paul’s companion Luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between Acts and Paul’s letters lead many scholars to dispute this account. Who Wrote John and What Were the Sources? John differs significantly from the synoptic gospels in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. Only ca. 8% of it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John reflects a Christian tradition that is different from that of the other gospels. It was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early Christian movement. It was used extensively by the Gnostic Christians. But it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections. It is now the favorite gospel of many conservative Christians, and the gospel least referred to by many liberal Christians. They have a totally different agenda in mind for their audience than did the authors of the synoptic gospels. The authors of the synoptic gospels were writing to their fellow Jews and trying to convince them that they could accept Jesus as the Messiah and still remain Jewish. Matthew even indicates that the men should still be circumcised . John’s teachings , as summed up in John 3:16 are just the opposite of those of the writers of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Whereas John welcomes anyone into the fold, Mark, Matthew and Luke write for and to Jews only. They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who has come to return Israel to its former glory. The gospel identifies its author as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus’s innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it and trace it instead to a “Johannine community” which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three “layers”, reaching its final form about 90-100 AD. Bottom Line The canonical gospels upon which the Christian faith is built, the ones which present the words of Jesus are writings by unknown authors writing to buttress the particular points they wished to make. The quotations allegedly from Jesus were most likely, made up by the authors to support their positions. The titles in our English Bibles are later additions; they are not original to the Gospels themselves. The Gospel narratives are always written in the third person. The tradition that they were written by two disciples (Matthew and John) and by two companions of the apostles (Mark and Luke) is first attested in the 2nd century! What we can say for certain about the authors is that they were all highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Christians of (at least) the second generation, contrast this with the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated, lower class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants. Even IF the gospels had been written by the “eye-witness” apostles, Matthew and John, it is unlikely that they reported everything accurately. Remember that their “testimony” comes thirty years (Matthew) and sixty years (John) after the fact. This would-be “eyewitness” testimony is, at a minimum, 30 years after the events it purports to describe and the authors were in or nearing their dotage. In any event, recent research has found that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. Read an excerpt from an article entitled “34 Years Later, Supreme Court Will Revisit Eyewitness IDs” By Adam Liptak Published: August 22, 2011, NY Times. 1 Like 2 Shares |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 5:29am On Mar 01, 2015 |
Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John Christians believe that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. Most also believe that they were written in the same order as they appear in the Bible. The Truth is … Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE. The Gospel of Mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Seventy six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and an further 3% of Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke. Matthew contains 606 of Mark’s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Mark’s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke. An excellent presentation of who wrote the Gospels presented by a died-in-the-wool-true-believer is presented here: “Who Wrote The Synoptic Gospels“. The diagram below is lifted from his writings. 3 Likes 1 Share
|
| Islam › Re: Friday Message: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Marry A Child? by Empiree: 11:57pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
What is this one saying Ifeann: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Religion Of War I by Empiree: 11:53pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
joseph1832:Na bro!, that's out of context right there. Allnaijablogger understands it. If you know what i mean, me & him have been up to fair debate on another thread. So "dont mess with muslims" is something you seemed to have said it all in your post above. It's not what you mean literally @bold. You got me now?. |
| Nairaland General › Re: Post by Empiree: 11:40pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
You are another olodo of NL. You guys are funny. Brother, you aint got any proof for everything you said here. Well, like you rightly said, you dont have nerve to debate this. I wonder how you still remain christian. Your choice I guess and it shall be duly respected. Have sweet day! delishpot: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 11:35pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
truthman2012:So you also believe "Book" given to Jesus was literal?. If it was, then as a baby boy in craddle from the verse you quoted up there, Rabbis could have grabbed the Book from him. You people are so funny. When he said he was given a Book means inspiration, message etc. It's like figurative exprssion. Geez! you fellas no go kill pezon  Clear example of this expression could be cited using Moses and Muhammad (PBUT). We know in Islam that God revealed a Book to Moses called Tawrat but Quran says that God spoke to Moses directly i:e inspiration http://quran.com/search?q=Allah%20spoke%20to%20Musa (4:164) And we know Jubril(Gabriel) dictated God's words to Muhammad. Is that a Book with hard cover? You guys are so fantastic. You dont seem to understand figuratively |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 11:17pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
malvisguy212:Now you are professional literalist. Are you telling me that God threw down Holy Books from heavens to His prophets and messangers and these men looked up to the heavens to catch it? You are funny man. Sahih International used "choice of words". Check others like Yusuf Ali, he used the phrase "Book". Shakir used "scripture". Khan also used "Book". If you think God sent down paper Books from heavens, then you would believe Cow jumped from the moon too. You are so amazing bro 4 Likes 2 Shares |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 1 John 5:7 Is A Pure Religious Fabrication !!! by Empiree: 10:58pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
Did Op complain?. No. You are talking about my prophet, Jesus the son of Mary, the messanger of God. So it concerns me. You hear?. I will only respect 1 thing, and that's if Op says he doesnt need my contributions. Clear? dolphinheart: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 10:02pm On Feb 28, 2015*. Modified: 3:03am On Mar 01, 2015 |
truthman2012:When Quran said 'Book' revealed to Jesus, do you actually think Quran is talking about somethng tangible?. When Quran speaks of Book given to Moses, Jesus Muhammad(PBUT) it's talking about revealation that came down, that's, inspiration. It was never meant for sheet of paper. However, for preservation purposes, God Almighty knew that in the future words will transcribed. So when Bible speaks of Jesus preaching Gospel, I dont expect him walking around places with Book (sheet of paper) in his hands. No that's not what it means. When Quran speaks of Books revealed to Jesus, it means the true message he was sent with to deliver to the children of Israel. That message is called "Injil" i:e Gospel. That's the message Quran is talking about. When Quran talks about they tampered and distorted it means they the people distorted his message which he was sent. Now did Mathew, Mark, Luke and John write down Gospel in the lifetime of Jesus?. None was written down in his lifetime. Mark is said to be earliest and was written 65-75AD. Mathew and Luke , which were written independently using Mark and at least one other shared source(now lost) that scholars refer to as "Q". Both Mathew and Luke seem to have been written 80AD or more. The latest of the Gospel is John, which seems to have been written no earlier than 90AD judging from internal evidence, thought could have been as late as 120AD. So basically, the point is Jesus events were written down long after him. None, I mean none was written in his lifetime. The writings in the New Testament which were closest in the time of death of Jesus was letters of Paul. Only seven (7) of these are considered genuinely written by Paul himself. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE AUTHORS? I:E Mathew and co In all cases, very little.Much is known about Paul because he gave few details of his life in his letters. He seems to have been Jew from the tribe of Benjamin who was born in Tarsus now known as Turkey and who studied in Jerusalem before converting to the Jesus sect as a result of kind visionary experience. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Family › Re: How Marriage Has Become A Luxury In Nigeria by Empiree: 6:50pm On Feb 28, 2015*. Modified: 2:10am On Mar 01, 2015 |
That's it. Parents have lots to do to fix this. This madness is not stopping anytime soon. This nonsense gives rise to homosexual, rape, masturbation, you name it. Yes, it keeps guys off for good. Another thing is men overseas seeing this kind of thing may be turned off. They would prefer to marry Akata or Oyinbo. Stress free from paying this and that in-laws. Very ridiculous! And then they blame the poor man for not coming back home. I have been hearing stories like for about 6yrs now. I thought it was a joke. Rapmoney: 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Question: Did Jesus Read The Bible? by Empiree: 6:04pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
Rilwayne001: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 1 John 5:7 Is A Pure Religious Fabrication !!! by Empiree: 5:35pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
Bobbysworld28:Quran: 2:87 "We gave Jesus the SON OF MARY clear (signs) and strengthened him with holy spirit 2:253 "....To Jesus the SON OF MARY...... 3:45 "O Mary! Allah gave you glad tidings of a word from Him; his name will be chrst Jesus, the SON OF MARY.... 4:157 "That they said (in boost), "we killed Jesus the SON OF MARY, the MESSANGER of Allah...." 4:171 ".....Christ Jesus the SON OF MARY was no more than messanger of God...." 5:17 "In blashemy indeed are those who say that God is Jesus the SON OF MARY. 5:46 "And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus the SON OF MARY confirming the Law that was revealed before him 5:72 "They do blashemy who say: 'God is christ the SON OF MARY. "But christ said Oh Israel worship your Lord and my Lord..." 5:75 "Christ Jesus the SON OF MARY was no more than messanger of Allah 5:78 "Curses was prounuced on those who reject Faith among the children of Israel by David and Jesus the SON OF MARY because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses" 5:110 "O Jesus the SON OF MARY! Recount My favor to you and your mother..." 5:112 Behold! the disciples said: " O Jesus the SON OF MARY! can thy Lord send down table set (with viands)....' 5:114 "Jesus the SON OF MARY said: "O Allah our lord..." These should be enough. Keep reading from the link and THINK ! http://jaq.org/blog/2009/10/10/all-passages-about-jesus-in-the-quran/ |
| Islam › Re: Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Marriage With Young Aisha by Empiree: 4:48pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
AlBaqir:Walaikum Salaam Waramotul llahwabarakatu |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Name Of Allah Appear On A Tree (pics) by Empiree: 4:45pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
As you can see, none of her fellow christian extremists condemned her for once. To them she's lecturing muslims. Thats the likes of pastorkun, allnaijablogger, true2god etc. Because the later have no knowledge. That's why what she's doing here is "amazing" to them. 9jaforlife: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Non-muslims Only: Jesus Or Mohammed by Empiree: 4:40pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
jerrymej:Yes, I thought so. And neither am I. You can do yourself a favor by going through op's profile see what she's up to and then return here and drop your conclusion. Remember, Op is the same as ifean+parisbook. So go through both profiles and see who is the real definition of fanatic. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Non-muslims Only: Jesus Or Mohammed by Empiree: 4:17pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
@jerrymej, you might want to tell your brethren all that you wrote above^. They are the true definition of "holier than thou". |
| Islam › Re: Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Marriage With Young Aisha by Empiree: 4:08pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
That's. Thanks for this humble contribution of yours. Hope they get it than embarrasing Islam with their bogus metholodogy AlBaqir: |
| Islam › Re: Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Marriage With Young Aisha by Empiree: 4:01pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
^Welcome back brother. How's your honeymoon? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Religion Of War I by Empiree: 3:30pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
Na weitng i do you again. Abeg confront the op. Me get no time. You and your brethren never look in the mirror before pointing fingers AllNaijaBlogger: 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 1 John 5:7 Is A Pure Religious Fabrication !!! by Empiree: 3:25pm On Feb 28, 2015 |
And I am my muslim brethren too have exegesis. And it has nothing to do with Paul, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Our exegesis however has everythig to do with Jesus the son of Mary Bobbysworld28: |
I won't waste my time addressing the nonsense you wrote in your pitiful defense. You've been pretending and lying from the womb! Shove your fake apology in that lying mouth of yours!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 (of 775 pages)