₦airaland Forum

Fantasywrita:
It's a very clear fact that Muslims are forbidden to eat pork meat. My friend was telling me the other day that they rear pig and eat it as well, he is a Christian and he doesn't find anything wrong with eating it.

But I'm aware that even in the bible pig was called an unclean animal. Why is it being still consumed?!

recently I was lectured on the health effect of eating it and blv me its not pleasant.

Then what of eating Camel that was prohibited in the Bible and Quran allows it to the extend that Muhammad even made sacrifice of Camels?

yazach:
Next person please

Stop behaving like a child, I shouldn't be repeating myself over and over again JUST to separate YOUR STATEMENT from MINE so that it will be easy to reply it's what is giving you problem.

I don't want to help you do that because it requires copy and paste with rearrangement (and this is how you've been replying my post MAYBE IT'S INTENTIONAL or NOT I don't want to conclude yet) but it would have been easier if you can just separate my statement with quote symbols [..] simple.

Why simple thing is so difficult for you to do since yesterday?

RikoduoSennin:
What about after Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, why did he still have a GOD: see Rev 3:12. Also note: He is going to his God in John 20:17.

Don't forget He resurrected with His HUMAN BODY that's why Apostle Paul said in 1 Corin 15:24-28 "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 [size=14pt]And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.[/size] ASV

JWs are found using this against Jesus' deity without even know the meaning.

I think I will let you be.

Is it a must to say it?

yazach:
and I said answer the question since you showed that you alone did not understand the post and I have explained it to you.
Note: it is not a shame to say I don't know. Just answer the question else quit this tread

It's like you never understand what I'm saying.

Let me repeat myself this time, I said your post mixed both your OWN statement and mine together if I click QUOTE on your post it'll only show your moniker while the rest will be BLANK, so modify your post by rearranging them so that if I quote your post it'll only display your statement.

Is it clear?

yazach:
I have never read your comment without dodging the content of the topic. you either change it to abusing the OP or those the OP hold in high esteem

I don't even need to reply this

If you say Olodo, did you know the definition?

You think I am a stranger to Yoruba Language right?

You alone did not understand the question is that not funny?

Not that I didn't understand your question rather you should be ashamed of yourself for improper composition of your question.

For the last time answer the question or tell us you don't know

Another chance! Go back to the POSTS you posted and then separate it the way I did IN THIS POST NOW maybe I won't reply you.
Is simple English your problem?

The way you post your comments won't allow me to reply you, IF I CLICK QUOTE it'll only display your moniker and LEAVE THE REST BLANK.....who can help me explain to you in Arabic?

Not only on this thread even the other thread too.

yazach:
Mr Emusan!!! You always dodge questions when you are caught red handed. Instead of you to say you don't know, you started twisting the question so that you can run away but not this time

Just answer the question

How many of your questions have I dodged? For you to say I always dodge questions.

Olodo!!! How can I answer your MIXED UP post when you failed to follow the pattern I always used in replying to your post?

For the last time SEPARATE MY STATEMENTS from YOURS so that when I click QUOTE only your statements will appear. OK!

yazach:
I read through the responds of other Christians, it seems you are the only one that doesn't understand the question.
But thank God you now joined the better people will you please respond appropriately?

I said MODIFY YOUR MIXED UP POST.


Separate MY STATEMENT from YOURS OK!

yazach:
YOUR POST IS EMPTY

If you don't know how to use NL tell people so that they can teach you.

Modify your post by separating YOUR POST from MINE by using quote symbols […]

e.g [quote ]the person statement here [/quote ]
Then your statement follows.
*NO space before & after the person's statement.

yazach:
Should I say you can't comprehend simple English. Let me repeat my question. Why are we not having the bibles with its original language in the circulation as we have translated ones? Hope you understand now

I will use this to inform you to go back to the rest of your post for proper modifications so that I can quote and reply them appropriately.

To your question, you're saying maybe I can't comprehend simple English but here is where our DISCUSSION ABOUT BIBLE AND ITS LANGUAGE STARTED FROM in your question;

"why are we not having the original bible WITH ITS original language in the circulation as you have the translated ones?"

Good English student can see that your question here is dualistic which I answered as you put it.

If your question had come this way; "why are we not having BIBLE WITH ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE..." but immediately you put "THE ORIGINAL BIBLE" and separated it with "WITH ITS ORIGINAL" makes your question to be addressing more than one thing.

it means you're expecting us to be going around with the original one Moses wrote and the rest.

So always be sound on how you construct your statement(s).

RikoduoSennin:
No it doesn't contradict it, but supports it.

It didn't support it unless if simple English is hard for you to comprehend.
Remember I didn't claim they contradict each other in pure sense of interpretation BUT if we should go by JWs' interpretation.

Do you need the bible to mention that everything with the exception of himself again.

Why not? But know that John was always accurate in his description of who Christ is, because in his epistle he called Jesus "Eternal Life".

How can eternal life be created?

It logical that himself won't be included- but John 1:3 says nothing the origin of the "master worker "and "the Father", the other two scripture says something about the origin of the "master worker-Jesus".

Because of your bias mind you will say John didn't say anything about the origin whereas the statement is very cleared "..WITHOUT Him(Christ), NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE, what has come into existence

That's why you purposely omitted this my point

You're wrong the verse is very cleared "...NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE, what has come into existence"

You believe Jesus came INTO existence because He was created THEN the verse says "NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

Yes, the Same way Jehovah is the true owner of everything: Both Satan and Jesus attest to the fact that He is the one who will send Angels to safeguard Jesus (Matt 4:1-, Jehovah promised Jesus a kingdom not the other way around, the phrase my/Jesus' "Father's house" indicates who has ownership.

I didn't dispute this.

Yes, you have a point there. Well then, Did Jesus have a GOD whom he answers to just like us? If yes, how is that someone Jesus' God, if he did not create Jesus?

Jesus can have God in His HUMAN form BUT NOT IN HIS pre-existence form...don't confuse Jesus' two nature with together.

Show me were in the scriptures please, let's examine his exact words carefully, [size=14pt]if it wasn't an hypothetical statement and not a fact.[/size] What did he say when he was about to die? What did apostle Peter, Paul and others say about who really did the ressurection of Jesus christ (Read Acts chapter 1-28). Someone raised him, even David prophecied it, excepted that Prophecy was a lie and everything else in the bible with it.

The bolded part show that you know it was clearly stated in the Scriptures BUT you already have your own interpretation for it.

It doesn't because the Senator his the biological Father of the Civil Engineer in question (Same way Jesus is THe SON of GOD).---Application: 12 Jesus was found in "his Father's house-Place of worship/temple" and he said he is going to "his Father's house- Spiritual Heaven" to prepare a place for his disciples.

Now you've included another statement into your previous one "BIOLOGICAL Father"

So did the senator now build everything for the Civil Engineer or everything is still built for the senator?

Please provide me with that verse.

34 For “who has come to know Jehovah’s* mind, or who has become his adviser?”+ 35 Or, “who has first given to him, so that it must be repaid to him?” 36 [size=14pt]Because from him and by him and for him are all things.[/size] To him be the glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:34-36NWT

This is the same point Paul reiterated in Col 1:15-18 and JWs try to avoid the problem by inserting the word OTHER throughout Col 1:16-18

Jesus did or Say NOTHING when he was called God by Thomas,

Thank God that you didn't deny this, but why Jesus didn't say anything when He was not God?

please don't over-stretch your imagination, besides being a Mighty God does not make one an Alnighty God does it?

This is where JWs always show that they lack the knowledge of the Scripture so when Jehovah was called MIGHTY God it means Jehovah is not Almighty right?

Why ignore the same Fact that Jesus has a GOD too, who he answers to?

I didn't ignore it because since the pre-existing form of the eternal WORD has added another nature which is HUMAN to take part in creation that makes Him to experience MAN experienced i.e feel hungry, sleep, weak, e.t.c so He can call His Father His God while on earth BUT in His pre-existence NATURE AS eternal WORD they are one. Phil 2:6

You thought I could still reason with you, but it seems you won't let me.

No! You said I can believe what I chose to believe because that's my choice BUT WHY not just ignore me since you know I can believe what I chose to believe?

BIBLESPEAKS:
Don't be decieved by those stats and my comment about you, there are many here (just like me) who know all about yooguyz/Paulgrundy and who can express themselves better in new ways.

The underlined statement fall out of logic unless if you people are discussing about Yooguyz/Paulgrundy in your meeting.

@bolded-people who just joined a forum less than two months will express themselves BETTER IN A NEW WAYS, which means this people have an OLD WAYS of expressing themselves before.

JMAN05:
What is "pbuh"?

It means "Peace Be Upon Him"

The exert blessing they always cast upon Muhammad because Muhammad didn't sure about his salvation so Muslims must pray blessing for him.

I wonder why people on earth we be praying PEACE for the person supposedly to be in heaven where God's peace forever abound.

Dapo777:
So how do we have So much details about the order in Which God created everything, and even with What(soil) he used in creating them,Since nobody was there to witness it.

So how did scientist know more about universe despite that the universe started about 14billion years ago according to them?

If God exists HE WILL BE THE ONLY EYES WITNESS TO HIS WORK and since God exists and can reveal Himself to people definitely He can tell people the order of His work.

Dapo777:
Just a question for you.
Who was there to witness this Genesis creation event, before God created Adam?

How can a creature be a witness to its creation process? Is like asking you were you there when your parent are planning to marry?

Does this question even sound logical to you?

Did God narrate to Adam how he created the earth before he created him(Adam)?

How can I know this?

Though God might tell Adam because there's a gross reference from the Bible that God actually visiting Adam before the fall BUT nowhere in the Bible we read it.

RikoduoSennin:
Because Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15- 18 says so.

Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15-18 would contradict John 1:3 if actually what the two books were saying is that God created Jesus first before using Him to create other things.

Also the above Scripture does not disprove that- he merely stated that Jesus is the master worker used to create everything,

Is the master worker used to create everything INCLUDING Himself, right?

You're wrong the verse is very cleared "...NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE, what has come into existence"

You believe Jesus came INTO existence because He was created THEN the verse says "NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

just the same way "a Senator" uses a "Civil Engineer" to build/supervised his estates. Who actually owns the building- the Civil Engineer or the Senator.

Firstly, your logic here contradict your below statement. The Senator is the owner!

Secondly, we are not talking about who uses one to achieve something BUT WHAT CAME FIRST INTO EXISTENCE!

*Jehovah witness says Jesus was first created/brought into existence before God used Him to create other thing.
*John 1:3 says NOTHING COME INTO EXISTENCE/CREATED without Jesus.
*This implies that Jesus is the very one who brought Himself into existence/created Himself according to JWs.

No, that is not the conclusion at all, Same way Jesus did not "resurrect himself"

Jesus said He will be the one who will raise Himself up, didn't you read that in the Bible?

sa(y)me way he did not create himself.

JWs says so in the light of John 1:3

Everything was made because of him and for him by his Father and God- Jehovah.

This contradict your above logic about Senator/Civil Engineer illustration because the Civil Engineer has nothing to do about the project anymore and the project was not built because of/for the Civil Engineer.

Secondly, Bible says everything was also created because of/for/by the Father, so what do you say about that?

Why else would Jesus need or have a God whom he answers to if he was not created? (John 20:17)

Why else would Jesus accept been called God when He is not God? John 20:28

But you can believe what you want to. You have a right to your opinion- right or wrong.

Then why do you quote me in the first place?

Dapo777:
I think I am more comfortable with this explanation than Reyginus explanation, What he was trying to make me accept is that the first light wasn't visible to human eyes,Which I just can't make myself accept it,But you would agree the light is visible,at least we are getting somewhere with that realization.

I'm really impressed with your open mind towards my post. God will continue to enlighten our mind and expand our knowledge about Himself. Amen! because I'm a fallible man with a limited mind trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited God. In fact I've learnt something on this thread.

Now how do you know that God removed this first light after using it to start his creation? No Where in the book of Genesis is it stated that God removed the light.

To answer your question we must first ask ourselves this, where was the FIRST LIGHT placed/positioned?

According to Genesis 1:3 the Light has no position nor been described as an OBJECT unlike the second Light in Gen 1:14 that has position and been described as an object. "And God said, let there be LIGHT in the FIRMAMENT of heaven…17 And God set THEM in the firmament of heaven..." this indicate that this light is actually an OBJECT and HAVING A POSITION.

If we carefully read Genesis 1:3-5 to see the function of this FIRST LIGHT and compare it with Genesis 1:14-19 there will be no doubt that this second LIGHT actually comes to PERFORM the functions of the FIRST LIGHT.

To answer your question, since the second Light came to perform the functions of the FIRST light and this first Light having no POSITION or been described in form of an object, then we can conclude that THIS LIGHT ACTUALLY PROJECTED OUT from NON POSITIONAL object SOURCE which its removal might not necessarily need to be considered.

Actually nowhere Bible later said the light was removed but common logic can tell us that since the second light has come to carry out the function of the first light. the first must surely not need to be there anymore.

I'm still a fallible and limited minded man trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited mind of God.

I will happily welcome any of your view about my post


Shalom!


(I'm sorry if my post is too lengthen)

I've read through this thread and I see what you're driving at but I've to come back to this post. In fact I like the way two of you have been keeping it cool from start.

Dapo777:
Ok in the book of Genesis 1:3-4
And God said let there be light and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from darkness.

You should have started it from verse 2 so that the understanding of what verse 3 is pointing will be cleared.

"And the earth was waste and void; [size=14pt]and darkness was upon the face of the deep:[/size] and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen 1:2 ASV

@bolded-Darkness was on the face of the deep, what God did is to illuminate the surrounding by bringing out "LIGHT" and mind you no where Bible later says this particular LIGHT was remained after the creation.

Now What this obviously means is that God created visible light before creating the sun because not in anywhere in verse one or two was the creation of sun mentioned.

So the light that God created where is it today?
This is where I see the misunderstanding of the scriptures because this particular light never HAVE A POSITION or physical representative object, so this should shows that God only bring out this LIGHT to start His work and LATER USED THE SUN TO REPLACE and continue the functionality of the FIRST LIGHT.

Since it is not possible to have visible light through natural means without the sun ,and If you mention Aurora, Aurora is caused by geomagnetic disturbances, I presume When God created the earth it was perfect,So having geomagnetic disturbances is ruled out,because the presence of Aurora doesn't support a "perfect" earth as God created it in the beginning.

I don't have much to say here.

Now that I have established the fact that they can't be light without the sun, Genesis 1:3-4 completely destroys the possibility of the existence of a God creating light before the sun.

Please let's allow Bible to speak for Itself rejecting Bible shouldn't rule out this, God is Light so they can be Light without the Sun and Genesis 1:3 didn't say the LIGHT have a position in fact an open minded reading Genesis 1:14 can see that the actual LIGHT CREATED was to TAKE the PLACE and FUNCTIONALITY of the first light; How?

We read in Gen 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:"

One thing that is very astonished here and made it clear that this LIGHT is to replace and perform the function of the FIRST LIGHT is the underlined because we can see again that this same LIGHT is to divide/separate day and night.

If we can ask, how many time then God divided DAY and NIGHT?

If will should follow your assumption our answer will be TWO TIMES, but an open minded person can conclude that THE SECOND LIGHT of Genesis 1:14 is to take the position and functionality of the FIRST LIGHT of Genesis 1:3.

So Gen 1:3 is just a light that God used to begin His work which later replaced by permanent one in Gen 1:14

I'm not given this answer to what science says about our universe BUT the way we should allow Bible to speak for Itself.

Comparison between Muhammad and Paul

http://www.answer-islam.org/PaulandMuhammad.html

yazach:
Lol Sheu Emusan, we muslim understand all ways of reciting the Qura'an so stop deceiving your self

Who says you people didn't understand the way of reciting your book, this shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

You accused Christians of not possessing THE ORIGINAL Bible which I go ahead to tell you that, you Muslims also don't have the original Quran but the copy of it.

So how does your statement address my post?

Ignorant is at work here.

yazach:
@red, prove ne wrong

because you are not carrying the Uthamic manuscripts but copy from it. so saying you have original Quran it's a lie from the pit of hell.#

@blue, but you can set your eyes on the original language in which it was revealed.

Yes Quran in Arabic full market.
Do you want to tell me that no Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Bible that you can purchase in the market?

So where is the bible written in its original language

If you're serious check here http://www.bmsoftware.co.uk/bibleworks7.htm and stop confusing people just because you want to propagate Islam.

Stop lying again.

did you even understand the language?

I don't need to understand it, it's left for you to question Allah why people must learn one particular language in other to serve him.
To me Yahweh had already prophecy that time is coming that people will worship God in their respects languages but in one accord.
So to read Bible in one language is to deny the prophecy of God.

The fact that you people neglect understanding the language makes you easy to be deceived

Nobody neglect original language the Bible was written, IT JUST THAT IT'S NOT COMPULSORY/MANDATORY by Yahweh like Allah made Quran mandatory in Arabic.

If they neglect, it how do will have Bible in over 1000 different Languages? Which means many people have studied the various languages that were used to write Bible.

So don't dive into what you don't know or stop intentionally lying for the propagation of Islam.

Instead of you Muslims to be thanking Christian for taking the first step to translate Quran into English because it was Christian who force Islamic scholars to begin to translate Quran into English and other Languages.

Go back to that link I gave and read it properly, Ok!

Abuamam:
We do not hold the companions of the prophet (saw) as infallible. Some of them were converted jews/ christians and attempted to understand the Qur'an from their own perspective.

some of them were Jews/Christians and they can still be given true statement about Paul

I can see you NEGLECTED the part that says MUHAMMAD HIMSELF said "God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from Jesus son of Mary. They asked how they hung back and he said, ‘He called them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.’ (T. Jesus said, ‘This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.’)

“Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (PAUL BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Unless if you want to tell us that THEY DIDN'T hear Muhammad making this claim or they erroneously apply this statement to Muhammad.

so saying a companion could be wrong in his opinion is not blasphemous.

Then The Quran you have now will also wrong because this same companions were the one who preserve it after Muhammad's death.

They were human like us and humans err.

Yet you believe human that can err can preserve Quran without error.

Besides, 'those companions' you mentioned were only a handful.

Really? So because it turns the table towards Islam they are now handful, so what assurance do you have on their work over Quran if they were only handful?

What we understand was that ibn Ishaq believes it was their opinion. Maybe, maybe not. Ibn Katheer has destroyed that hypothesis in his tafseer of Surah 36:14.

So the Muhammad's word for word they sited was also their opinion, keep it coming.

Secondly, even Alfred Guillame (a missionary famous for malicious translations of muslim works) admits in his introduction that Ibn Ishaq would frequently introduce his opinion, and sometimes (unverified) narrations into his seerah. The presence of unauthentic narrations in the seerah of ibn Ishaq was understood by muslim scholars from the early days.

Was the Muhammad statement also Ibn Ishaq opinion?

Ibn Ishaq was incidentally not a companion.

Typical Muslim denying their true man.

Thirdly the verse 36:14-29, continues to say that the city was eventually destroyed. There is no evidence that this ever happened to Antioch post-christian era, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary noted that, based on Ibn Katheer's arguments, he rejected the identification with Antioch.

Why can't you quote the Yusuf Ali foot note so that everybody can see it THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED in the two links you gave they just talk without any support.

Imam al tha'laabi is noted for his use of israeeliyat (non muslim) sources in his book "Stories of the prophets". Of course some of those sources were christian, and those ones would have endorsed Paul.

Even if this man is using Christian it's not his fault, it's the fault of the author of Quran who always left incomplete information after the book claim to be well detailed. Example is this Sura 36:14-29, here two people were sent, and been strengthen by third person THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH NAME WHO ACTUALLY LIVE BEFORE THIS STORY WAS NARRATED BY Allah, how can Allah narrate an historical event and couldn't mention the name of the people, did Allah not know their name?

Without consulting Christian/Jews book many stories in Quran are meaningless and doesn't make sense at all.

Nevertheless, don't tell me you want diminish the effort of this man in Islam. That reminds me when one of your brother one time ago rubbish Yusuf Ali just because he wants to defend the verse that says "Muslims must enter hell".

He merely compiled those stories of prophets as narrated by them without attempting to distinguish between what was authenticated by the prophet (saw) or not.

What of the word for word of the prophet in the above quote, was it fabricated?

His Qisas al anbiyaa is not considered a serious work. Fantasy abounds, and it is extremely difficult reading for any serious scholar. Incidentally, Imam al tha'labi was also not a companion.

So who was he?

You can learn more about these relatively meager and weak items of 'evidence' on
http://ebrahimsaifuddin./2007/09/09/is-paul-a-prophet-according-to-quran/

Actually what this site was saying it that Paul's name never appeared in the verse that some commentators believe it talks about Paul but I'm not here for that in fact no disciple of Jesus' name appear in the Quran BUT my main concern is WHAT THE EARLY MUSLIMS COMMENTATOR BELIEVES about Paul?

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/paul-of-tarsus-the-false-apostle-according-to-islam/

When I saw this link I thought I will see where Quran mention Paul's name as corrupter of Christianity or says something similar but what the author did is not but biting around the bush, in fact it's like the author copy Nisar the rebuttal of link I provided in my first post.

The question will need to ask ourselves is, did Allah not aware that Paul has corrupted the teaching of Jesus and Allah couldn't mention Paul's name just for once throughout Quran?

For a more comprehensive understanding of the muslim perspective on christian history, Ibn Taimiyyah's book... "The correct response concerning those who changed the faith taught by the Messiah". I am not too sure if there is a translation though.

Is it Muslims that suppose to be given their own perspective about Christian's history something that would have given Allah and Muhammad great prestige if everything was well detailed in the Quran?

What you will see the Muslims do is using the same Bible to condemn this faithful Apostles who were eyes witness and received direct revelation from God.

Rilwayne001:
Islam does'nt recognise paul as an apostle of christ.
Same way Jesus never recognised him.

This is Sam Shamoun's reply to Nisar here: http://www.answer-islam.org/Stpaulandislam.html

You and other bias Muslims may not recognise the Apostleship of Paul but the FIRST Muslims commentators do.

Unless you want to tell us that all these Muhammad's companions are wrong

<so We reinforced them with a third> means, ‘We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger.’ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu’ayb Al-Jaba’i, “The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was BULUS, and the city was Antioch…

<Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.>

meaning, ‘from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-‘Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di‘amah claimed that they were MESSENGERS of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, abridged under a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition, September 2000], p. 179; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul.

In Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah titled The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press Karachi) we find the following positive endorsement of Paul:

“God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from Jesus son of Mary. They asked how they hung back and he said, ‘He called them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.’ (T. Jesus said, ‘This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.’)

“Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (PAUL BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.” (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Other Muslim sources that affirm the preceding statement include:

“Among the apostles and those disciples around them, whom Jesus sent out, there were Peter and his companion Paul.” (Thalabii, Qisas al-Anbiyaa, pp. 389-390)

And,

“Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed.” (History, Volume IV, p. 123; bold emphasis ours)

frank317:
U have written almost a text book , yet no answer to a simple yes , no, or I dont know question

I don't know how you people read someone's post, this is the first statement in my post you quoted

"You and honourhim still have the same problem "poor comprehension" sorry to say this because a person with high comprehension CAN READ THROUGH MY POSTS THAT I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION [size=14pt]as YES[/size] with additional fact to buttress it.

So what do you understand in this statement?

dp

bingbagbo:
john chapter 1:10 states " he was in the world, and the world was made by him, but the world did not recognize him"....who is this scripture talking about?

In fact John 1:10 is not the best reference but John 1:3

For you to see how flaw the JWs teaching is read the John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-18 in their own Bible.

Here is John 1:3 in their own Bible
"All things were created through him(The word/Christ), apart from him (The Word/Christ) NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE, what has come into existence" NWT

Let's break this verse down @underlined:
1) APART from Him:--- This means that NOTHING was created that didn't pass through Christ.

2) NOT EVEN ONE THING CAME INTO EXISTENCE:--- In fact this is more interesting because NO CREATURE CAME INTO EXISTENCE except through Christ this means it was Christ who brought every CREATURE INTO EXISTENCE.

3) What HAS COME into existence:--- This further support that NO CREATURE THAT EXISTED except through Christ.


YET this same JWs who render this beautiful verse like this can still say Jesus is the FIRST CREATURE OF GOD.

After reading this verse one can conclude that Jesus is the one who created Himself according to JWs.

johnydon22:
lol bros forget the response above just yes or no and i will be ok... why is it hard for you to say yes or no I WONDER hehehehehe

You and honourhim still have the same problem "poor comprehension" sorry to say this because a person with high comprehension CAN READ THROUGH MY POSTS THAT I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION as YES with additional fact to buttress it.

For you to come back and asked me to say YES/NO is pathetic.

I know what you want after I answer Yes is to ask "then why did God create Lucifer again since God knows Lucifer will rebel?"

But I've encoded everything in my previous post even the question you haven't ask.

Or if I say NO then you will say God is not omniscient.

This is the summary of my previous post:

God wants to create and God did create everything including BEINGS that will possess A MIND and EVERY BEING THAT POSSESSED MIND must also have the POWER OF REASON if not the MIND WILL BE USELESS and God knows that this power of reason can be misused THOUGH GOD STILL WENT AHEAD TO CREATE but God also placed commandment/rule/law to follow in other not to overuse this ability.

Here my explanation didn't stop on Lucifer alone but ALL CREATED BEING WITH MIND because some Angels even Adam are Vitim of it.

I guess you want to know whether God single handedly know Lucifer will rebel and still goes ahead to create him; that one is sure! because EVERYTHING CREATED BY God HAVE THEIR own PURPOSE of been created the rebellion of Lucifer to become an OPPOSITION shouldn't rule out the purpose God created him for before the fall.

God knows that the WHOLE world won't accept the sacrifice of Jesus YET He goes further to send Jesus TO DIE FOR THE SIN OF THE WORLD, does it mean the purpose of sending Jesus won't be achieved?

Yes it will be achieved even NOT THE WHOLE world that Jesus died for will accept Him.


Shalom!

The awesome God will perform His wonder in your life in Jesus name.

For those who have in one way or the other taken the step of brotherly love to help DJDOLA, blessing of God will never depart from you all. Amen!

mcfynest:
HHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

johnydon22:
No i need a specific answer...DID GOD KNOW LUCIFER WILL TURN BAD BEFORE CREATING HIM ?? just answer YES or NO...no more long talks... just answer me yes or no shikena

See my respond above

honourhim:
Your explanations are not wrong bro. What i mean by specific is to give a yes or no answer as he has indicated below.

Is like the same thing is affecting two of you.

So you just want me to say Yes/No; when my post has already answered that.

No wonder people who profess themselves to be wise became the opposite.