₦airaland Forum

Just saying though.
The Holy spirit has pretty much been around for a long time.

Ezekiel’s Call to Be a Prophet
1 He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.”
2 As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.
3 He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The Word of God represents the divine revelation and communication of God's will and purpose.

The Holy Spirit has been present throughout history, working in the lives of believers before, during and after the time of Jesus.

During the time of Jesus, the Holy Spirit's role becomes even more pronounced as Jesus himself is described as being filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1)

Just saying

SIRTee15:
I'm talking about Muhammed. Show me any science of hadith that declares any positive narration of Muhammed as weak.

These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?

SIRTee15:
The way u talk, one will think of u Muslims hold hadeeths in high regard. Alas, all na lie.
If I bring hadiths narration here, u will still deny it.

Science of hadiths is an intellectual fraud. They only criticise the negativity of Muhammed as weak.
I'm yet to see any science of hadiths criticizing the positivity of Mohamed.
Science of hadiths has only one agenda...declare all embarrassing narrative of Muhammed as weak.

We have had discussions on divergent hadith/view when the issue of David and the two disputants was brought up.

One needs to be cautious as reported speech could be fairy tales at variance with the truth.

Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham died in 833, some 201 years after the death of the Prophet. From his memory, he edited the biography of the Prophet written by Ibn Ishaq that was lost and is now only known in the writing of Ibn Hisham and Tabari. As claimed by some, Ibn Hisham did not meet Ibn Ishaq and was never his student. Ibn Hisham was born in 767 CE when Ibn Ishaq died.

Bear in mind too that one of the main reasons for questioning the trustworthiness of even Ibn Ishaq is the fact that he lived in a time when historical accuracy was not a priority. The early Islamic period was marked by wars, disputes, and power struggles, which hindered the objective reporting of historical events.

The tenacity with which falsehood fights or establishes a semblance of truth is quite wondrous.

SIRTee15:
The killing of asma bint marwa was reported in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, the oldest biography of Muhammad.
Those Muslims who reject the the things that Ishaq says will accept what he says when it suits them.

By the way, the story is also reported in Ibn Sa'd's Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir page 30–31 translation Moinul Haq.
So even if we dismiss Ibn Ishaq, we still have this story from other valid Muslim sources.

It really is not best practice responding to a lot of these views that have been propagated because at some point we all will individually know. As to if this will matter, I don't know.

You are aware there are different accounts of the death of Asma however authentic or inauthentic the sources are.

Degree of reports about the killing of `Asma bint Marwan

As for the report about the slaying of ‘Asma bint Marwan that is propagated by these liars, it is a fabricated report. It was narrated by al-Qadai in Musnad ash-Shihab (856), al-Khatib in at-Tarikh (13/99), Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh (51/244), and Ibn ‘Umar al-Harbi in his Fawaid (50), all via Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Lakhami Abu Ibrahim al-Wasiti from Mujalid ibn Sa‘id from ash-Sha‘bi from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:

A woman from Banu Khatamah wrote poetry lampooning the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and news of that reached the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and upset him. He said: “Who will deal with her for me?” A man from among her people said: I will, O Messenger of Allah! She was a seller of dates, so he went to her and said to her: Do you have any dates? She said: Yes. So she showed him some dates, and he said: I want something better than this. So she went inside to show him and he followed her and looked right and left, but he did not see anything except a small table, and he kept hitting her head with it until he killed her. Then he went to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah, I have taken care of her for you. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The validity of what you have done is something that no one could dispute.”

This woman was ‘Asma bint Marwan.

“This is an invalid isnad and a fabricated report that was narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj of whom al-Bukhari said: His hadith is to be rejected. Ibn Ma‘in said: (He is) an evil liar. Ad-Daraqutni said: (He is) a liar; and on one occasion he said: He is not trustworthy.” (Mizan al-I‘tidal, 3/509)

Ibn ‘Adiyy said:

“Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj fabricated the hadith about the woman who used to lampoon the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to which when she was killed he (allegedly) said: “The validity of what you have done is something that no one could dispute.” (Al-Mawdu‘at by Ibn al-Jawzi 3/18)

This hadith was also mentioned by Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) in ad-Da‘ifah (6013); he said it is fabricated (mawdu‘).

It was narrated by al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi (p. 173) and via him by al-Qadai (858):

“‘Abdullah ibn al-Harith told me, from his father, that ‘Asma bint Marwan, from Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, was married to Yazid ibn Zayd ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), criticise Islam and incite people against the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). When news of what she said and her incitement of the people reached ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adiyy ibn Kharashah ibn Umayyah al-Khatmi, he said: O Allah, I make a vow to You that I shall kill her if You grant a safe return to Madinah to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) – as the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was in Badr at that time. When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came back from Badr, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adiyy came to her in the middle of the night and entered upon her in her house when she had a group of her children sleeping around her, including an infant who was still being breastfed. He reached out to touch her and found the infant whom she was breastfeeding. He pushed the child aside then he plunged his sword into her chest until it came out of her back. Then he went out and prayed Fajr with the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Madinah. When the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) finished praying, he looked at ‘Umayr and said: Did you kill the daughter of Marwan? He said: Yes, may my father be sacrificed for you, O Messenger of Allah.

‘Umayr was afraid that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not approve of his killing her, so he said: Is there any sin on me for that, O Messenger of Allah? He said: “The validity of what you have done is something that no one could dispute.” And this is the first time I heard this phrase from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). ‘Umayr said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned to those who were around him and said: “If you want to see a man who supported Allah and His Messenger, then look at ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adiyy.”

“This is a worthless isnad. Imam Ahmad said concerning al-Waqidi – whose name was Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn Waqid – : He is a liar; he alters hadiths. Ibn Ma‘in said: He is not trustworthy. On one occasion he said: His hadith is not to b written down. Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim said: He is matruk (rejected). Abu Haatim and an-Nasai said: He fabricates hadith. Ibn ‘Adiyy said: His hadiths are odd and problematic. Ibn al-Madini said: al-Waqidi fabricates hadith.” (Mizan al-I‘tidal, 3/663)

An-Nasai said:

“The liars who are known for fabricating hadith are four: Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya in Madinah, al-Waqidi in Baghdad, Muqatil in Khorasan and Muhammad ibn Sa‘id in Syria.” (Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, 9/163)

FxMasterz:
The judgment prophesied in Malachi 3 is for Israel. The dreadful day prophesied in Malachi 4 is for the world.

If we look at the language here like that in Isaiah 48:10 states, "I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction." This language suggests that the purpose of the refining fire is to purify and renew, not to condemn and destroy.

The book of Malachi is primarily concerned with addressing the corrupt practices of the Israelites and calling them to repentance. The dreadful day is presented as a consequence of their actions, but it is also portrayed as a potential turning point for the people.

FxMasterz:
Judgement day.

Perharps we should look again.

The judgment that is spoken of in Malachi primarily refers to the judgment on earth. Malachi warns of consequences for the people's actions and urges them to repent and return to God. The judgment that is described in the book is not necessarily a final judgment day, but rather a judgment that will have immediate repercussions on the people's lives and their relationship with God.

The judgment that is spoken of in Malachi primarily refers to the judgment on earth. Malachi warns of consequences for the people's actions and urges them to repent and return to God. The judgment that is described in the book is not necessarily a final judgment day, but rather a judgment that will have immediate repercussions on the people's lives and their relationship with God.

Malachi 3:2-3 describes the coming of the Lord as a refiner's fire, purifying the people and purging them of impurity. This imagery of purification and refinement suggests a judgment that is aimed at correcting and purifying the people, rather than condemning them to eternal damnation.

FxMasterz:
The Lord Jesus was speaking in prophetic language there. The clarification of that statement is found in Luke 1:17.

Prophetically, there are two events associated with Elijah. Both events were mentioned in the book of Malachi 4:5-6:

"5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

The real Elijah would accomplish verse 5 as prophesied in the book of Revelation. In the book of Revelation, Elijah was not seen "turning the hearts of the children to their fathers." He was busy commanding fire and prophesying. He was shutting the heavens. He
and Moses appeared on the scene suddenly prophesying and doing mighty and dreadful deeds. They didn't have time to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers.

John accomplished verse 6 as the "voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the path of the Lord." He performed this task in the spirit of Elijah. Under the same anointing that Elijah carried So, he is spiritually called Elijah. Someone in the spiritual mantle of Elijah (John the Baptist) is prophetically called Elijah but he is not physically Elijah. The real Elijah comes at the close of the age.

For example, let's look at a similar prophetic language about Jerusalem.

Revelation 11:8:
"[8] And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

You can see that the city referred to here is clearly Jerusalem. It was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. That does not make Jerusalem Sodom or Egypt. It's a prophetic language. This prophecy is already fulfilled in our own days. Sodomy means Gayism - Homosexuality. LGBTQ things. These are things for which Israel is known today. John accurately named Israel Sodom spiritually. That does not make Israel Sodom geographically or otherwise. Egypt means a departure from the true God. A breaking of the divine covenant. This is already clear. Those guys who call themselves Israelites today don't know God. Today's Israel is spiritually Sodom and Egypt.Israel is not Egypt geographically or other wise. The same way John was spiritually Elijah but not physically Elijah.

As Jerusalem is not physically Sodom, so also John is not physically Elijah. The spirit of Sodom is upon Jerusalem just as the spirit of Elijah was upon John. However, they are two distinct individuals.

What really is the great and dreadful day?

Kobojunkie:
The last days which referred to the time of God's judgment against the nation of Israel took place in the same generation that Jesus's disciples were a part of. We are talking approximately 1900 years ago.

2. Jesus Christ informed you that Elijah had already come(past tense). Are you expecting Elijah to have to come again?

Jesus did not give judgement yet

How can Elijah come before Jesus, as stated in Matthew, and also come before the great and awesome day of the Lord, as stated in Malachi?

How do the the people ask of Elijah when
Kings 19 says:
15 And the Lord said to him, “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. And when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.
16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place.
17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death.

Is Jehu and Jesus not confused? Jehu being King and putting some to death isn't a form judgement?

TenQ:
I have giving you explanation from the Bible, do you want me to give you speculations that is not supported by the scriptures?

If you think that the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah, you should be able to give us convincing scriptures that back it up. As for me, the Bible did not give us the names other than the fact that they are two men, they are witnesses, power of miracles is given to them and they would preach for a number of days before they are killed and they will be resurected from the dead.

Any two men who fulfill ALL these conditions are the witnesses irrespective of whether their name is James or Joseph or Janitor or Junaid.

You know the speculators too give biblical support for their views. I was hoping you could give some input as to which is correct.

It's fine though. Thank you.

FxMasterz:
All this lengthy talk can be rendered heretic by one simple scripture -The two appearances Jesus had on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. The same Elijah that appeared to Jesus cannot be the same John tha Baptist.

Truly, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That does not mean flesh and blood cannot appear there. Moses like Elijah probably never died too. His grave was never found. There's high tendency that their reappearance at the end of time as prophesied in the book of revelation was to accomplish the shedding off of the flesh so that they, in their spirit bodies can inherit the Kingdom of God.

Malachi 4:5 refers to the reappearance of Elijah before the coming of the dreadful day of the Lord. The dreadful day of the Lord is still future. It is a day of judgement. The first coming of Christ was not dreadful. It was for the salvation of souls. You can bear me witness that there was nothing dreadful about it. In the book of revelation, just immediately after Moses and Elijah (The two witnesses) were taken up after their redirection, the dreadful judgement of the Lord began upon the earth. That's the day Malachi was talking about.

John himself testified that "He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness" - John 1:23. Re-echoing an earlier prophecy of Isaiah about him.

"This is Elijah that was to come..." Is a prophetic language. It should not be taken literally. The literal meaning of those words was given at John's birth in Luke 1:17.

Being in the spirit of Elijah is not the same as being Elijah. The anointing or mantle of Elijah was upon him to deliver his fiery message of repentance to Israel. This is similar event as the one recorded of Elisha after the mantle of Elijah fell on him on the other side of Jordan. The sons of the prophet looking at Elisha afar off reported: "The spirit of Elijah doth rest upon Elisha". Elisha did not become Elijah at that point but he operated in the spirit of Elijah. John was not a reincarnation of Elijah. He was a distinct spirit with the zeal, fervour and anointing of Elijah.

Quite a good submission however where then do you place the statement of Jesus?

Mark 9:13
But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."

Matthew 17:10-13
10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

MaxInDHouse:
The title GOD/God/god has no difference it's religionists that are making distinctions in favour of the choice they've made for instance your own Allah is GOD from your own point of view while all others are gods the same way a Trinitarian will view his Jesus as GOD but render your own Allah as god so it's meaningless what really matters is NAME of your own God.

Godliness means sacred services like the salat in Islam but what is the practical benefit?

Can the love you have for your Allah move you to sacrifice nationality and refuse to kill your fellow Muslim with whom you climbed Arafat during Hajj when the politicians ruling your country orders you to go and kill Muslims in another country?

NO! In fact at such a time the love for Allah means nothing to you in the face of nationality and racism.

That's what the Bible quote means!

You know that those who believe in so called other deities are particularly and zealous about their worship rights too.




In loving yourself you can love the almighty.
Do unto others as you will like them to do to you.

The mix up comes when some try to oppress or outsmart the other. If you are truly fair and just and this goes round there will be no problem.

When some adopt measures to covet what belongs to another problems result. And in display of anger so many unlikable things follow.

TenQ:
Did the book of Revelation give the identity of the two witnesses OR you are making a speculation that these could be Moses and Elijah?

I am seeking clarity about this as there are divergent views.

Can you or can't you not explain convincingly?

Kobojunkie:
Actually, John was Elijah returned.
Unless of course, you would rather believe that Jesus Christ lied about it!

Elijah was probably originally meant to die at the hands of King Ahab and Jezebel. But God took him out of that timeline and brought Him back as John, where he eventually did die at the hands of King Herod and his wife.

Interesting

Kobojunkie:
There are those for which that rule barely holds. They wake up exhausted, sometimes even more than they did before they went in to rest.

How is what established?

Do you often recover strength after a rest or subdue a feeling of hunger after eating a meal?

Do you have an inclination to go to sleep at some point? Those who wake up feeling exhausted may seek and find reasons why this is.

Could be blood sugar anomalies, kidney problems or some ailment.

TenQ:
There is no scripture to assert or prove that one of the two men spoken of in Rev 11:1-14. They were simply referred to as Witnessess. Whatever anyone says about the two men other than this are speculations as the Bible gives no names.

Note:
Not withstanding, as Christians, we believe in miracles from God as a suspension of the norm in specific instances such that God reserves the right to resurrect anyone or even cause a person to be reincarnated. However, this would be a miracle of God and stands unchallenged by us as Christians.

Are these parts of scripture meaningless then?


This description of the two witnesses bears a striking resemblance to the miracles performed by Elijah in the Old Testament. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah proclaimed that there would be no rain in the land, and in 1 Kings 18, he called down fire from heaven to consume a sacrifice.


The appearance of Elijah alongside Moses at the transfiguration of Jesus is another indicator of Elijah's significance in the end times. In Matthew 17:3-4, it says, "Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, 'Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'"

Elijah did not experience physical death but was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11) supports the notion that he is destined to return as one of the two witnesses in Revelation. The idea that Elijah did not die but was taken directly to heaven leaves the possibility open for him to return in the future as one of the witnesses.

Although his apparent return as new born John the Baptist or a John the Baptist of kindred spirit adds on some uncertainty.

Kobojunkie:
Huh?

When you feel tired and have a rest you often feel refreshed isn't it? How is this established?

SIRTee15:
Jesus was referencing the spirit of Elijah in John the baptist. John is not reincarnated Elijah.

Thank you SirTee15. Outside Jesus pointing towards this it was not obvious as in the case of Elisha.

2 Kings 2:15
And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

In anycase how do we understand that a kindred spirit of Elijah and not Elijah himself was expected?

Also in Revelations 11:3-12, Elijah is said to be one of the two. How is this so?

TenQ:
Christians do NOT believe in reincarnation as it is contrary to the scripture.

1. Elijah did not die but was taken bodily to heaven, therefore this is not a reincarnation
2Kin 2:11:
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

2. Jesus said, that John the Baptist was Elijah (without giving any explanation of how it is). Jesus simply said:

Mat 11:14:
"And if you will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come."

Mat 17:11-13:
"And Jesus answered and said to them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say to you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist."

Since Elijah never died, this cannot be called a reincarnation.

Not withstanding, as Christians, we believe in miracles from God as a suspension of the norm in specific instances such that God reserves the right to resurrect anyone or even cause a person to be reincarnated. However, this would be a miracle of God and stands unchallenged by us as Christians.

Is Elijah of the two spoken in Revelations?

Well all time is bound by obviously stated and unstated contracts or law.

Your point is noted.

Kobojunkie:
I only mention that the One instance connected to one particular being who happened to be of the Old Law.

2. This isn't about the books and times but rather the contracts --- the details, terms and conditions, etc., -- as well as Kingdoms to which they apply being different. For example, the Old Law's terms applies only to those of Israel who are of the Nation of Israel which is of this world whereas Jesus Christ applies to those removed from this world and are of the Kingdom of God.

MaxInDHouse:
Apart from the usual mimicking of the above statement from different people claiming Muslims what exactly are you testifying to?

Well i was once like you before i became one of Jehovah's Witnesses the dogmatic credulity is not worthwhile because the so called Allah you want to testify is just the word in the mouth of an Arabian that's all there is no single evidence that there is any god called Allah.

The title GOD connotes SUPREME BEING and the supreme supposed to ORGANIZE those in his or her domain so if people are DISORGANIZED to point of killing one another yet calling on the same Allah to support them in killing one another then your Allah is just a dogma and nothing more:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

The highlighted in blue is why i abandoned Islam because you people are like other religions claiming you have a god in your midst but the way you follow politics to exterminate one another shows there is no god at all in your gathering you're just deluded!

So many things are referred to as god by different people. How do you pronounce God differently from god?

What is godliness or is it Godliness?

Kobojunkie:
Your understanding of Scripture is obviously flawed Op.

Elijah, whom you point to there, was of the Old Covenant Law of Moses, a Covenant separate and different from that which is Jesus Christ, God's New Covenant, and Law in the Kingdom of God. So, right off you are attempting to apply that which works in the Old Covenant in the New Covenant. Jesus Christ did hint at this when He suggested that even John, the last of the Old Covenant prophets, was no greater than the least in the Kingdom of God, clearly revealing that that which applied to the Old has no place in the New.

In the New Covenant, Jesus Christ offered everyone of the blood of Israel who would become citizens of the Kingdom of God, Eternal Life for free right from the gate(Narrow and Broad gates). His Covenant makes clear that after death would come judgment for all the sheep and goats in His Kingdom at a time in the future after He returns- Matthew 25 vs 31 - 25 & John 5 vs 19 - 29. So what use would reincarnation serve those who have Eternal Life in this life?

You definitely know there is the connection as there are prophesies from the old testament about things in the new testament.

Reference to the laws and Torah of Moses too.

Then what use is the the Transfiguration if the books and times are not related?

FRANCISTOWN:
@Explore2xmore
@FxMasterz
@SIRTee15
@MightySparrow
@MaxInDHouse

I'll be speaking according to the bible.
John the Baptist was infact the reincarnation of Elijah.
Let's walk thru the bible together.
What happens when a man dies?
His earthly body returns back to the ground.
It is impossible to ascend into heaven with your earthly body.
For God himself said this to the first man who inherited death.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. Gen 3:19

When Enoch was taken up to heaven, he was not taken with his earthly body, likewise Elijah

Apostle Paul better explained this in

Phil3: 21 He will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own, using the same power with which he will bring everything under his control.

The earthly body cannot survive in heaven.
So Enoch and Elijah must have been given a new body just as Paul explained.

Now about reincarnation.
See what the dictionary says:
•A rebirth of a soul, in a physical life form, such as a body.
Since Elijah was taken into heaven without his earthly body. It is reasonable to say he was a soul.
Now in Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

John was the only prophet that was sent just before Jesus.

Even Jesus confirmed that indeed John the Baptist was a prophet in Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist...

Luke 1:17 "And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah..."

Simply put, the spirit of Elijah in a new earthly body.
And Jesus really said it clearly in

Mat 11:14:
"And if you will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come."

Mat 17:11-13:
"And Jesus answered and said to them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say to you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist."

When Elijah was taken to heaven, he was given a different body, so, he had to enter a new earthly body which can only happen by birth. Hence, reincarnation

Thank you for your responses. I hope to get better clarity soon. More so that Elijah is also prophesied to come again at the end of the world. In the book of Revelation, the two witnesses are described .

Revelation 11:3–12 is a description of two individuals who will help accomplish God’s work during the tribulation: “I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. Is it that the text is improperly understood? If Elijah is to be one of these two, conclusively he has physically died as John the Baptist who was beheaded?

Then in Malachi it is not stated explicitly that a kindred spirit will come before Jesus.

There appears some verses in the Bible that say reincarnation doesn't occur.
Hebrews 9:27 - "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment

Yet Jesus is said to say Elijah had come but wasn't recognised. Matthew 11:10-14.

Where was Elijah said to have come?

Then he is also said to come again at the end of the world.


Attn: Fxmasterz,SirTee15,Malcom1x,Maximdhouse,Mightysparrow,MrPrevailer,Tenq and all who can shed light and knowledge about this.

malcom1X:
Sahir Bukhari

Can you be consistent? You write Sahir Buhari

---

and share a picture alleging a statement of Ayatollahi Khomeini without establishing a link

malcom1X:
😂😂😂😂😂

Scam Muhammed.
Said his donkey can bear witness

🤣🤣🤣

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40)

Can you prove this?

Or disprove:
Jesus was in the belly of the earth for only one full day (Saturday) and two partial days (Friday afternoon and Sunday morning). This does not add up to three days and three nights

malcom1X:
Dude I'm not Jewish. I'm a Christian.

It doesn't matter. Was Jesus Jewish or is there a tribe called Christian? Did Jesus nullify Jewish laws?

malcom1X:
Your prophet married a 6 years old, had sex with her when she was 9 years old.

In what context is it ok to have sex with 9 year old ?

Without going into the certainty or uncertainty on the age of marriage consumation have you considered what your Jewish brethren say in the Thalmud?

In the Jewish tradition, betrothal and marriage are sacred and highly valued institutions. The concept of the minimum age for marriage is found in the Talmud, which is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism. In the Talmud, it is stated that the minimum age for a girl to be married is three years old and one day. This is based on a passage from the Talmud that states, "A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse" (Niddah 5:4).

This mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations.

Explore2xmore:
Perharps a holistic look into history and ages of girls when married will be helpful even if scholars don't universally agree on the age of Aisha at marriage.

The difference in age with her sister Asma, her being born before Hijra, her listing amongst the first to accept Islam.

There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding Aisha's age at the time of her marriage. Some narrations suggest she was around 9 years old, while others propose she was older. It is important to note that the concept of age and maturity varied in different societies and historical contexts.

You also mention the wives Prophet Muhammad married. How many of these wives were not widows?

Where is the mention of blasphemy?
Anyway the Banu Qurayzah battle resulted from their breach of peace treaty.

The Qurayza, a tribe who lived in Medina alongside the Muslims, had broken their treaty of non-hostility with the Muslims at the height of the Battle of the Trench, and intended to attack them from within, but before they could, the siege on Madina suddenly ended, leaving the Qurayza alone and caught red-handed. They quickly fortified themselves, and finally surrendered after a 25-day siege of their fort.

Some of the Qurayza and their families had broken ranks with their tribe early on and left to seek protection from the Muslims, and they were granted it; others were afforded amnesty through the intercession of some Muslims, due to some good deed they had done in the past. The rest, even though those who now regretted and disagreed with the treason, chose to be judged with those guilty out of tribal loyalties.

Cecile of France (aged 8/9) was married to Tancred, Prince of Galilee (aged 30/31), in late 1106. As he was dying in 1112, Tancred made Pons, Count of Tripoli, promise to marry her; Pons and Cecile were married later that year, when she was 14/15 and he was 13/14.

Eleanor de Bohun (aged about 9/10) was married to Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester (aged about 20/21), in 1376.

Elizabeth the Cuman (aged 8/9) was married to the future Stephen V of Hungary in 1253.

malcom1X:
Why don't you answer the question and stop attacking Christianity.
Christianity is greater than Islam.
Islam is just a religion of lies.
Muhammed PUBG was a false prophet.

And the almighty is the greatest.

malcom1X:
Your prophet married a 6 years old, had sex with her when she was 9 years old.
married 11 wives,
had lot of sex slaves
killed 900 Jews in banu qureyza incident and enslaved their women and sold their children in the market of Najad.
which is written in your own books. how can these things be said as blasphemy ?

In what context is it ok to have sex with 9 year old ?

Perharps a holistic look into history and ages of girls when married will be helpful even if scholars don't universally agree on the age of Aisha at marriage.

The difference in age with her sister Asma, her being born before Hijra, her listing amongst the first to accept Islam.

There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding Aisha's age at the time of her marriage. Some narrations suggest she was around 9 years old, while others propose she was older. It is important to note that the concept of age and maturity varied in different societies and historical contexts.

You also mention the wives Prophet Muhammad married. How many of these wives were not widows?

Where is the mention of blasphemy?
Anyway the Banu Qurayzah battle resulted from their breach of peace treaty.

The Qurayza, a tribe who lived in Medina alongside the Muslims, had broken their treaty of non-hostility with the Muslims at the height of the Battle of the Trench, and intended to attack them from within, but before they could, the siege on Madina suddenly ended, leaving the Qurayza alone and caught red-handed. They quickly fortified themselves, and finally surrendered after a 25-day siege of their fort.

Some of the Qurayza and their families had broken ranks with their tribe early on and left to seek protection from the Muslims, and they were granted it; others were afforded amnesty through the intercession of some Muslims, due to some good deed they had done in the past. The rest, even though those who now regretted and disagreed with the treason, chose to be judged with those guilty out of tribal loyalties.