₦airaland Forum

One of the arguments that the Watchtower Society raises against Jesus being God in the flesh is the fact that the Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be seen, whereas Jesus was seen:

[size=14pt]Is Jesus God?[/size]

“No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:18.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY

Many people believe that Jesus is not God. Still, others point to Bible verses that supposedly indicate that Jesus is equal to God. (This indicates that JWs truly knew that some verses in the Bible actually put Jesus in equality with the Father)

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

The Bible does not portray Jesus as being Almighty God or equal to God. On the contrary, it clearly teaches that Jesus is inferior to God. For example, the Bible records Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) [size=14pt]The Bible also says: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Jesus cannot be God because many people did in fact see Jesus.[/size]

Jesus’ early followers did not claim that he was God. For example, the Gospel writer John said concerning the things he recorded: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31. (AWAKE! DECEMBER 2013)

*Ironically, the Society interprets this text in reference to Christ, which means that he (JESUS) is the One whom the passage says "no one has seen or can see!"

What basis is there for saying that such phrases as “the one alone having immortality” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” refer to Jesus rather than to Jehovah God?

The apostle Paul wrote: “This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, [size=13pt]the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”[/size] —1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

Bible commentators generally reason: ‘How could such phrases as “the one alone having immortality,” the “only Potentate,” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” point to anyone other than the Almighty?’ [size=14pt]ADMITTEDLY, such terms could be used TO DESCRIBE JEHOVAH. However, the context indicates that at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, Paul WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO JESUS.[/size]

At the end of verse 14, Paul mentions “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:14) Hence, when Paul writes in 1Ti 6 verse 15 that “this manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times,” [size=14pt]he is referring to a manifestation of Jesus, not of Jehovah God.[/size] Who, then, is the “only Potentate”? It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Potentate referred to by Paul. Why? The context makes it evident that Paul is comparing Jesus with human rulers. Jesus truly is, as Paul wrote, “King of those [humans] who rule as kings and Lord of those [humans] who rule as lords.”* Yes, compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate.” Jesus has been given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:14) No human potentate can make that claim! (Watchtower, September 1, 2005, Questions From Readers, p. 27; Bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

There are many descriptions we need to consider in these verses:
1. the one alone having immortality,
2. who dwells in unapproachable light, &
3. whom not one of men has seen or can see.

ONLY A BEING THAT IS UNCREATED can absolutely fit into these three descriptions.
So when Jehovah Witness try to explain the phrase "the one alone having immortality" we see them concluding that Jesus life CAN BY ANY MEANS DESTROYED OR BEYOND DESTRUCTION.

[size=13pt]How can Jesus be “the one alone having immortality”?[/size]

The first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Compare Re 1:17, 18.) For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel. [size=14pt]The glorified Jesus, God’s appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has “an indestructible life.”[/size] —Heb 7:15-17, 23-25.

The word “indestructible” here translates the Greek term a•ka•ta′ly•tos, meaning, literally, “indissoluble.” (Heb 7:16, ftn) The word is a compound of the negative prefix a joined to other words relating to a “loosening down,” as in Jesus’ statement regarding the loosening down or throwing down of the stones of the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, 2), as well as in Paul’s reference to the loosening down of the earthly “tent” of Christians, that is, the dissolving of their earthly life in human bodies. (2Cor 5:1) [size=14pt]Thus, the immortal life granted Jesus upon his resurrection is not merely endless but is beyond deterioration or dissolution and is beyond destruction.[/size] (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Immortality, pp. 1189-1190; underline & bold emphasis ours)

Main Article: www.answering-islam.org/seen-the-unseen-God-pt_1.html

Good day,
I need some one to help me with the web code for Advanced Search where by visitor(s) can use to search.

For instance if a visitor select Lagos State all the localities under Lagos can also be selected in another field.

Thanks.

ZoranderGraeme:
And muslims weren't brutally tortured and forced to renounce their faith and when they refuse brutally murdered?

You mean Muhammad and his Caliph?

Surprise surprise, you still don't get it.

Or you don't?

And it can be used as physical superiority, what makes you think you're better qualified to interpret that than all the muslim scholars I. The world? And how will them accept spiritual superiority when they don't believe in the one true God.

How did I interpret it? I can see that you've totally missed the point here.

You see this just sums up your confusion, Jizya is a pillar of islam? Lmao! Please, who is the imb*cile that told you this? News flash, muslims don't pay Jizya, dweeb, only non muslims do? Lol! This just proves how ignorant you are.

My point is that you don't know anything about islam.

And when you read this, you clearly saw, that if they refuse to accept islam they should pay, Jizya, a tax paid by non Muslim, you have epically failed in this post,

Yeah I actually confused it with Zaakat, I admitted my error on that part!

where is the forceful conversion? Did he say convert them by force? He said if they refuse islam, they should pay Jizya. It's not a pillar of Islam like you hilariously posted above. [size=14pt]Please, if you have any evidence of where the Quran or the prophet approved forceful conversion, feel free.[/size] Lol! But this post really cracked me up.

I can't stop laughing sha...you're still trying hard to defend your Allah. Like I said I don't want to post another verse and I can see how you boycott the word of Muhammad in that hadith.

But let me just give you these from both Quran and the Hadith:

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." S. 2:192 (Which means the fight will stop UNTIL everybody worships Allah)

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" S 8:12
(Unbelievers' head and fingertip should be strike off, what does Allah mean here?)

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: [size=14pt]'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'.[/size] And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." (Please who ORDERED Muhammad here to FIGHT?)

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/001-smt.php#001.0030

You need further schooling by your fellow zealots.

You need more than I do...

Again after all this Allah can still say "let there be no compulsion in religion" after he has commanded Muhammad to forcefully convert people.

The more you tried hard to prove Allah right the more Muhammad and his caliph's life disprove you.

JMAN05:
If any honest hearted person here wants to ask question, let him do so. emusan is not ready to see his error.

Please for goodness sake stop mentioning my name on irrelevant issue, if there was an error in my post why can't you highlight it so that people can see it rather than making empty noise?

Yet you haven't answered any of my questions since. mtcheeeee

I don't know. If don't know what am saying, leave it.

And to make yourself more clearer is difficult for you to do.

Seems u wanna let it slide. Good!

And this is coming from someone who have been avoiding my questions since...

Pls show me this greek equivalent. And how does that affect "Jesus" and "Isaiah" we are using today?

What kind of Greek equivalent should I show you?

Kindly explain what you mean by "how does that affect Jesus and Isaiah!

Are you saying they are the english equivalent of the hebrew?

Your situation is pathetic,

So what is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus and Isaiah in English?

Or Do Jesus and Isaiah in English have different equivalent words in both Hebrew and Greek?

I hope u are talking about bible writers, shey?

No! About the Author of the book "What does Bible really teach?"

Which dictionary did u use? Paste it let's see.

Anyway I used the normal English Android dictionary, but are you saying it's wrong or what?

Oga, Jesus is not a translation of Yehoshua in English. It is an English man's way of saying Yehoshua.
But they have done for "Jesus" and "Isaiah"? And the equivalent is " Jesus" and "Isaiah" shey?

What you're implying here now is that NO TRANSLATION HAS TAKEN PLACE in the rendering of Jesus by an English man, and since it's an English man's way of SAYING Yehoshua, that means the word Jesus is still pronounced in Hebrew FORM not in English FORM.

In this case can we classify this as a BORROW WORD in English?

So what is an English man's way of saying the Divine name?

JMAN05:
I ve written a reply up to 4 times, yet I can't see any. I wonder what is wrong

Maybe your post against NL rules.

In the previous thread. I asked what you mean by Hebrew root/form, and why Jesus and Isaiah have and Jehovah does not.

Means when Jesus and Isaiah (in Greek) were used by the GREEK WRITERS they used GREEK words that equivalent to their Hebrew words.

You also said that Greek use there Greek equivalent. That does not make any sense, since the issue is about name. Unless you are saying that name should be translated.

Are you telling me that Name can't be translated?
In fact TRANSLATE simply means: To CHANGE TEXT from one LANGUAGE to another.
Yoruba man will say 'Ayo' which is a name and an English man will say 'Joy' which is also a name.
I've dealt with this in my previous post please to take me back to beginning.

And what is the equivalent of YHWH in English?

English Scholars have not done that...

2. The link I gave was to show scholars who do not agree that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. That was the point there. Don't twist it.

Then you're just another time waster, did I tell you that I don't know?
But the evidence in that link is obviously against you and your organization.

JMAN05:
What you referred to were not greek bible manuscripts, they are bible translations. Next time, research well before you speak.

What did I refer to in my post that is not Greek Bible manuscripts?

JMAN05:
Oga, answer those questions or we let the matter slide.

Lame excuse, have you answered my own QUESTIONS? not singular but plural

The publication u quoted is not talking about the Septuagint used in Jesus' day, [size=14pt]but is about variations in bible manuscripts on hand.[/size] That these variations did not make the bible unreliable.

So if this variations DIDN'T make the BIBLE UNRELIABLE, what does it mean?
Remember as a variations it still includes REMOVING OF GOD'S NAME as your organization claimed Yet DIDN'T make the Bible UNRELIABLE.
If God failed to prevent His own name from being removed from over 5000 manuscripts evidence we have today, how are we sure that every thing is RELIABLE?

That God's name was latter removed from the bible (not by the apostles) is never in doubt. That's the truth. You are not acquainted with this topic at all. Why don't you make indepth research before writing?

All this your side talk won't help.
Why can't you post anything you know about this topic and stop this your nonsense talk.
Your brother posted from a link which I've trashed down yet you're saying another thing here. Which evidence do you have that God's name was removed Than to allude to the THEORY of Howard which I've also trashed in my previous reply to your brother's post.

So pls answer those questions.

Answer the question in below chat.

ZoranderGraeme:
Please, explain, what was done to the early disciples?

Google is still your best friend but let me just hint you small before you carry out your own research,
All the Apostles were BRUTALLY KILLED except Apostle John who wrote the book of John, 1-3 John & Revelation after he survived many severe tortures.

Like I said, english is your problem.

How

But you said acknowledgement is about belief, [size=14pt]and I'm showing you the multiple ways it can be used,[/size] again I reiterate, it's physical, and you still haven't showed me where it says convert everyone by force. Again, until they pay tax.

Lol...still trying hard to prove Allah right. Yet you said in above that English is my problem when the statement beautifully described you.
So if it has multiple ways it can be used then you can use it's meaning as superiority for believe, right You need to go back to primary school.

Again, It didn't say convert them by force, jusT says fight against them. But:
Pickthall: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower. Quran 8:61

Another deluded justification, why commanding them to FIGHT in the first place?

Beside, let me teach you your Islam small.
The word 'Jizya' is what translated as 'TAX' in that verse, this is the same verse in Yusuf Ali "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

1. Jizya is one of the FIVE PILLAR of ISLAM-so is it not a way to adhere with Quranic teaching?
2. WITH WILLING SUBMISSION-what is Islam? No Muslims will ever deny that ISLAM isn't a SUBMISSION.

So what is your point here?

Finally, I don't need to quote another verse where forceful conversion was commanded through fighting but to crown my position on the verse verse, this how Muhammad himself understood this very verse and compare it with how you've been trying to defend Allah's contradictory command.
Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. [size=14pt]Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."[/size]
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/019-smt.php#019.4294 (bold, underline-mine)

If you need another verse where forceful conversion was prescribed I will give you.

Yet Allah said "There is no compulsion in religion..."

Rilwon:
That ishmaelite today are blessed, fertile and multiplying him exceedingly,

Of course Yahweh the great promise keeper who can't lie unlike Allah fulfilled His promise but not as you dubiously interpreted the below verse in your first post.

AND THEY ARE GREAT NATION.....
For what great nation is THERE that has gods so close to it as the LORD, our God, is to us whenever we call upon him? Deut 4:7

Let me know expose your dubious interpretation of your first post through this medium

These are the key point I extracted from your first post
"Now can we ask what is “A GREAT NATION” mean?
As we can see, [size=14pt]the nation of Israel is called great because:[/size]
1) They worship God and only God.
2) They have the law of God."

After you asked the question WHAT IS A GREAT NATION MEAN? you then concluded with the two statements whereas you just made those points to support your false prophet that's why you can say "An honest look at the Muslim nation today reveals that they worship the same God of Abraham and they also have a set of laws given to them in the Quran."

Whereas an open-minded person reading those verses can see that Moses 'the speaker' wasn't saying the nation of Israel were a GREAT NATION because they WORSHIP THE TRUE GOD nor HAVING THE LAWS but Moses simply asking QUESTIONS in both verses: " 7 "FOR WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 "And WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE that has such [size=14pt]statutes and righteous judgments[/size] as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

This is more evident with the QUESTION MARK at the end of each verse but because of the lies of Muhammad that is flowing in you, you decided to twist these verses.

The above verses reveal:
1. That TRULY GREAT NATION exists not only Israelite because Bible talked about MANY GREAT NATIONS which some even POWERFUL THAN ISRAEL before they possess the Land.
2. But this GREAT NATION never has a STATUTES and RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT like the Israelite.

The funny part of it is that despite the fact that you want to squeeze Muslims nation into it you forgot that your Allah's laws some contradicted the very STATUTES given by Yahweh that no any GREAT NATION ever had which means the source of the two books can't be from the same God.

KellamLeTorneau:
Neither did the muslims at first. First muslims were ordered to my migrate, then the mekkans tried to turn every muslim sympathizer against them, including a christian King that gave the muslims safe haven, then they followed them to where they were and wanted to finish them, then God ordered them to defend themselves. What's so silly about this? What's so silly about asking where the prophet killed anyone unjustly? Get a grip?

Lol...do you even know that what they did to Jesus' disciples and the early Christians half of it were not done to Muhammad? YET God didn't tell them to fight for their defence.

Jesus said to his disciples "if they persecute you in one city flee to another...", "...PRAY for them who despitefully use you, and PERSECUTED you"

Can you compare this with Allah's decision?

Look who's talking, but like I always have, I will bring facts to back up this claim.

Can someone help me interpret this

Acknowledgement of superiority as used i. The verse to your deluded mind means to acknowledge a god?

But fight those who do not believe in Allah is not to acknowledge Allah is to praise Jesus.

Where did the verse mention the non Muslims acknowledging muslim God after you fight them? Don't twist words mate. If I say I acknowledge Real Madrid is superior arsenal, does that mean I'm talking about God?

See how you just wasted the money...

Does Real Madrid and Arsenal relate to God? We're talking about your false Qur'an here.

Lol! You and your buffoonery. The verse says until and they pay Jizya and acknowledge superiority. Superiority here obviously as any sane person will view it is physical.

Again you have refused to show me where or how the verse says to convert people by force. It says fight until until they pay tax/Jizya, did it say until they become muslims? You don't even know what you're arguing about.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah,...nor follow the religion of truth" what does it mean?

KellamLeTorneau:
Tell me one single war Muhammad fought that wasn't out of necessity, or self defense.

See silly excuse, ALL THE DISCIPLES and Early Christians were persecuted YET they didn't FIGHT FOR self-defense.

Read the parts in bold, your claims say until they acknowledge islam and the verse you brought as proof says until they pay Jizya, see how confused or rather blind you are?

Are you asking question for putting QUESTION MARK at the end of that statement
Beside, you lack undrrstanding of simple English.

The last time I check to acknowledge can mean to declare one's belief in; as, to acknowledge the being of a God

So the command of Allah to Muhammad is what Mr?

Read it again: "FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN Allah, nor the LATTER DAY, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle prohibited, nor FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, out of those who have been given the the Book, UNTIL they pay tax in acknowledgment of superiority AND they are in the state of SUBJECTION"

Yes, and Allah does not contradict himself.

Because you still want to defend your false Qur'an if not this is a plain contradiction, mind you I'm not even talking about contradiction here but to let you know that Allah knows that there should be NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION but still went ahead commanding Muhammad to FORCIBLY CONVERT PEOPLE INTO Islam. Which trashed any meaning Muslims can apply to that S. 2:256

KellamLeTorneau:
You really like "bolding" stuff don't you?

Yeah so that your damn closed eyes can see my points.

I don't know which point that proves or why it was a necessity. What about "made explixit" implicates me?

What is he saying

I suggest you go back and refute my claims, that is of course if you can.

Your arrogancy won't allow you to learn.

You said I should refute your claims but I didn't even see any though i love to reply your post but your inability to properly make use of simple post TAG had prevented me not to and I'm trying to correct your ignorance but you're proving stubborn.

Stop giving me an excuse to paint you as a buffoon.

The person who supposed to be referring to as buffoon is making ignorant noise.

For the last time if you're serious, go back to that your PREVIOUS POST use the QUOTE TAG in a right place so that if I quote it, it won't display EMPTY POST. OK!

KellamLeTorneau:
Let's focus on Muhammad here. Here I ask why did Moses fight wars?

Moses fought war as a result of God judging the Amorites for their iniquity not because Moses wanted them to serve his God by force.

Also I ask where Muhammad ordered the unjustified killing of a person.

This is not the initial point you've deviated from it.

You quoted a verse from Quran that says "Let there be no compulsion in religion:..." 2:256 and I said so Allah knows this yet commanded Muhammad to fight those people UNTIL THEY SUBMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.

So we are talking about compulsion or forceful conversion here not killing unjustly.

In case you forget this is the verse "FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor the LATTER DAY, nor do they prohibit what ALLAH and his Apostle prohibited, nor FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, out of those who have been given the the Book, UNTIL they pay tax in acknowledgment of superiority AND they are in the state of SUBJECTION" S 9:29 Shakir (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

Yet Allah still said there's no compulsion in religion.

Rilwon:
Which means you accept my point. Very good of you.

Accept your point that?

JMAN05:
Your words are guess replies. U are not well acquainted with what u saying.

Imaging I'm not well acquainted with what I'm saying yet you couldn't point out where I've misinterpreted ALL THE EVIDENCE I'VE PROVIDED FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION nor be able to refute them.

Maybe it's now old light!

I asked a question which you dodged.

This is my question once again, Can you tell us which manuscripts did the translators of NW use? If you think I'm wrong.

JMAN05:
You ve not answered the question. I said:

Now you focus on your questions but you couldn't realize that they're many of many my questions you didn't attend to before you disappeared on this thread even when I trashed the very link you provided.

1. Are you of the opinion that Jesus went along with the popular Jewish tradition of not pronouncing God's name?

I've asked some questions on this thread which I believe if you people have answered them, it'll provide answer to this your question.

Now let me ask again, if Jesus and His disciples actually used the name including THE ACTUAL PRONUNCIATION of the name (because I know if Jesus had to pronounce it He will surely used the right pronunciation) why everything lost again?

2. Do you have the autograph written by apostle John?

Since you have it you can help me get one.

And why do you think that Jesus and John would not use the divine name when the Septuagint used in his day used the name?

Your organization can help you unless if you want to me that they were wrong.

"Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible
manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. [size=14pt]These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text IN REFINED FORM[/size]." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold-mine)

Please I've addressed all these in my previous post refute my previous post first before you ask further question(s).

Answer...

In short, if u know this topic well, those questions should clear ur eye. Keep copy and pasting what u don't understand. J version, which bible Greek manuscript is J version. Sorry for u.

So it pains you how I'm exposing your false teaching through copy and paste.

I don't understand it yet none of them have you nor your brother refuted.

quote]Its as a result of long typing? If u had admitted ur mistake I would have helped u see ur error, but u are here pushing it to typo.[/quote]You just like making empty noise, after I've told you it was as a result of long typing. you're still referring to it or you want to tell me it hasn't happened to you before.

OK that these versions were translated into Hebrew abt 1385 is still typo?

I guess you're asking question here.

Are you telling me that J versions are not TRANSLATIONS but ORIGINAL one pen down by the disciples?

KellamLeTorneau:
Bombings and suicide attacks are all forbidden in Islam. I think the verse below sums up everything.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

— trans. Yusuf Ali, Quran 2:256

This is the very issue I was discussing with one Muslim, so Allah knows this yet commanded Muhammad to fight those people UNTIL THEY SUBMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.

Beside, from Muhammad himself down to his successors (the caliphates) tell me anyone who didn't fight, why do they fight if there's no compulsion in Islam?

KellamLeTorneau:
That which is [size=14pt]made explicit[/size] to the lazy is not worth my time.

The @bold shows how knowledge is far from you.

I simply said you should rearrange your post because as I click quote on it, it was only your name within the quote tag that appeared.

So do the necessary thing and let the Bible study continues.

[quote author=KellamLeTorneau post=34465767][/quote]Mr man rearrange your post so that I can quote it. No time for copy and rearrange.

Rilwon:
Just as you have the right to quote the post that wasn't directed at you, but hey! I'm not here to argue or convince anyone to stop believing what they believed. The first post I quoted on this thread is my major concern - and I believe I have done justice to it. Every other thing you want to say is your cuppa, you have the right to type whatever rocks your boat.

You've turned to a preacher now waooo

So the post you first quoted, does it concern you?

I will like to see this.

OK.
Brother Rilwon help us open your Bible to the book of Genesis chapter 25 starting from verse 12 to 18.

Welcome to today's Bible study.

KellamLeTorneau:
Its simple as that, what agrees with the quran is true, what doesn't must be a fabrication.

Yet where you chose to make Bible agreed with Qur'an also contradict Qur'an i.e John 16 Jesus called God Father whereas there's no Fatherhood of Allah in Qur'an.

Jesus refers to god as the father and like biblical scholars admit, it doesn't mean that in a literal sense,

Waoooooo clap for yourself for knowing what Allah failed to know, now is about time to teach Muhammad's god that being called Son or sons of God don't literally mean God married any wife to Father Son or sons as Qur'an portrayed it.

if so then how many sons does the father have?, did your bible not say you are all sons of god?

After all you can reason beyond Qur'an now, so if God has millions sons it doesn't literally mean God gets wife before He could father them.

You can't compare literary terms and methods used in the Quran and the bible.

Of course why will I be comparing an inspired Book of God with the one fabricated by Muhammad who thought that by saying Son or sons of God means God must get a wife before He could father Son or sons.

And by the way, I think you mean "confused".

So what if I meant confused, do you have problem with that?

KellamLeTorneau:
Lol! So because THE was used therefore he is not infact a prophet that's your explanation?

I'll not take you serious if you actually thought this is my actual explanation.

Lmao this is the use of purpose of "the" denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

After you wrote the @bold with key point underlined you can still go further to write the below statement.

[size=14pt]It can't be[/size] that the "the" signifies his fame and so the people in question knew him? Or that they mentioned him earlier?

Read the bold and underline together and compare it with your above statement to see how ridiculous it is.

Besides, my point the fact that they [size=14pt]knew him as a prophet, I'm not questioning whether he is a prophet[/size] or not so you have no point here.[/size]

Thank God you agree that THEY KNEW HIM AS A PROPHET which leads me to my earlier emphasis that NOT THAT THEY ONLY KNEW HIM AS A PROPHET BUT A PROPHET WHO HAD ALREADY MENTIONED/SPOKEN ABOUT BEFORE and with the evidence in the Bible we know that THEY KNEW HIM AS THE ONE MOSES SPOKE ABOUT IN DEUTERONOMY 18:18 which your false professor has applied to Muhammad

You agreed with that verse and for you to change your posit now will be problem and this shows how Muslims always dance around the Bible.

Lmao! And I'm the confused one?

With the evidence provided above.

Rilwon:
Well, you have the right to type whatever you want with your phone;

Now you believe, do you also know that you have right to type whatever you like on your phone about Bible?

you have the right to quote whichever post you want to quote on Nairaland.

Just the way you're being quoting what you want from Bible on Nairaland.

But for me, my response was directed at the post I quoted, I owe you no arguement. You can as well say that part of the bible was written by muslims, or tell us that the bible God lied in that verse. Thats your cuppa.

No vex bros, he quite understood those verses because Bible unlike Qur'an has details of every history its making reference to.

The same Bible recorded where THE PROMISED of God to ISMAIL WAS FULFILLED.

KellamLeTorneau:
Jesus was a prophet, just like many others before him, heck your bible should tell you that.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Matthew 21-10/11

This is the reason I always admit that Muslims are the most confused people on earth.

Now you said that Jesus is a prophet and quoted Bible to support it without even look at the textual claim surrounded the verses you quoted.

Firstly, the crowd said "...THE PROPHET..." if you're a good English student you'll notice the DEFINITE ARTICLE "THE" in front of that Prophet which means this prophet has a reference.

Secondly, So with this and more evidence in the Bible we know that THE PROPHET is a prophecy of Deut 18:18 whereas your professor Nakir has already deceived you people that Deut 18:18 is a prophecy of Muhammad as stated in the OP.

Finally, No winning way for you this crowd are correct and Muslims like Nakir and you are wrong.

KellamLeTorneau:
Think of it as a partly recoverable corrupt file. [size=14pt]Parts that agree with the Quran are legit.[/size] Rubbish like the original sin and isaac etc, that's what corruption entails.

The bold part is laughable so any part that against Muhammad and his book is corrupted.

Imaging in one of the verse the OP used to prove Muhammad in the Bible we see Jesus addressing God as FATHER whereas Quran and Muhammad never regard God as Father.

Yet you couldn't see this as an implication to Muslims claim but believe it agreed with Quran.

Funny and confuse people...

KellamLeTorneau:
But that's the point. Its a topic that relies on how one sees it like.

So you mean Muhammad in the Bible it depends on how one sees it not as the way OP presented it as fact?

Besides, its too long and I'll say this, he'll say that, to what end? But the end point or end theory which he claimed Jesus is the son of god,

He say Jesus is the Son of God not son of god.

So that's the only part you want to address and neglecting the main point of the thread he had addressed. Whereas when you finally derailed the thread you'll do nothing than copy and paste not that you'll be using Bible as your brother used it to prove the case of Muhammad.

that is something that can be proved or refuted.

So the point of this thread can't be proved and refuted...

You are a devout christian, you have nothing to fear,

I don't need you to tell me this, my God does not give me the spirit of fear but of a sound mind.

I'm sure he'll pass with flying colours. You are also free and welcomed to answer the question.

I know he will but my point still remains the same don't derail the thread with that if you want to talk about you can open a new thread and invite him.

The problem you're having is that you jump too much

JMAN05:
Hahahaha this guy self. By saying J version, it shows you dont know what you are talking about. You even called them Greek manuscripts. Chai, go and google apostate site again and wipe this gaffe.

Greek manuscripts in that part it's as result of long typing.

Oh dey were translated into Hebrew around 1385AD? So that is where we got the form?

Can you tell us which manuscripts the translators of NW use? If you think I'm wrong.

But wait. What are u talking abt? The Greek manuscript we have on hand does not have the full form. I mean what is this guy talking about? How does that even favor ur position?

Go back to your brother's and my post and see the reason why I said you jump too much.

I was replying to his copy and paste work.

U don't have full knowledge of this subject. U are just making what I call a guess reply.

Imaging I'm making a guess reply with ALL the evidence I've provided from your own WT and NWT which none of you are yet to refute.

DP

JMAN05:
1. Are you of the opinion that Jesus went along with the popular Jewish tradition of not pronouncing God's name?

With the insertion of Jehovah in NWT just show me where Jesus and the Disciples address the Father as Jehovah/Yahweh...this is what have been demanding from your brother since.

2. Do you have the autograph written by apostle John? And why do you think that Jesus and John would not use the divine name when the Septuagint used in his day used the name?

Lol...so you mean the over 5000 Greek manuscripts in possession today is not dependable again, so the autograph of apostle John is what you're looking for.

If Jesus and His disciples used it, it would have been pen down by the NT writers with over 5000 Greek manuscripts in possession today.

So once again show me where Jesus and the disciples address the Father as Yahweh/Jehovah.

KellamLeTorneau:
Your whole refutation of these prophecies is debateable, infact its bollocks! But let's try to understand the logic of your last claim since the rest is too long. So Jesus is the son of God, and he sent him to guide all believers? Answer yes or no. If no, explain where I have it wrong.

What is the purpose of this thread if not to DEBATE?

Since his post is debatable go ahead and do the necessary thing I mean to refute those points.

I can see degression from the main point of this thread with that your question.

@scholar8200-don't allow him to derail this thread with that question.

alansary0064:
Yes originally but has undergoes modification by compilers and translator

So is it the Original INSPIRED ONE Zakir Naik used in his work you copy or the MODIFICATION one BY COMPILERS AND TRANSLATORS?

I have finally created my Child Theme.
Can some guide me on how to customize the site?
cc: kombo, hostkobo