Agboriotejoye:


The Bible was inspired by the spirit of God.

Now your Quran was a subject of debate about which is right and which isn't. Tell us about the burnt scrolls and what they contain. How many versions of the Quran do the Shia and the Shiites use. Which hadiths are acceptable and which are Daesh? Tell me more.

Holy spirit of lies and deceit?

The demonic satanic spirit that makes your pastors rape children and engage in fraud in the churches...

Useless bunch of Criminals...

Abeg mek i continue exposing the bible.... People are enjoying the lectures here!


People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version", the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 7:53-8:11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

For example, with regard to John 8:1-11, the commentators of this Bible say in very small print at the bottom of the page:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38 with variations of text; some mark the text as doubtful."

Agboriotejoye:


Chai so because Paul called Ishmael and by Muhammad the slave son, you guys hate him so. But he did not lie now? Ishmael was a slave son so your Muhammad comes from a generation of slaves. Yet he loved enslaving women.

Do you want to run from the topic?

I can help educate you on any lie you have been brainwashed and programmed to accept abt islam!!

But before you run...tell me where do all of these Bibles come from and why the difficulty in defining what is a truly "inspired" word of God?

Agboriotejoye:


begotten son is not only used in John 3:16. There are many other verses in the bible that refers to Jesus as the begotten son of God. If begotten is removed from John 3:16, it still stands as " His only son" which still carries the same meaning and effect as only begotten son. Do you agree?

You have still not answered. Are your wives worse than slaves?

Yiu are dodging my concrete evidence! Anyway thats xtians act when they are exposed

Shege shameless trinitarian pagan....

Online baseless liar

Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered.

How many books of the Bible are 'truly inspired'?

Today, Christian sects are not agreed on the definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, that generation believed in books that were, many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles and which have since been completely destroyed by the Church.

Who Inspired? The bible?

Answer me and I'll expose you further

Agboriotejoye:


The Pentateuch was completed by Joshua. Same with the book of Joshua completed by Caleb. No one claimed any asinine revelations. They were written down by men about God's dealings with Israel.

Now, can you show us any mention of Mohammad in the Torah for him to have received a revelation about Torah that existed before him?

So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc. Go to your local library and have a look.



So, where did these discarded verses come from in the first place?

St. Paul was answerable for having made during his lifetime wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus . Changes which Jesus himself never authorized to anyone during his lifetime. After his departure the pagan gentiles who accepted Paul's simplified version of "Christianity" continued to adapt it and to introduce into it many of the doctrines of paganism which they had already been practicing for so may centuries. Among these doctrines was the concept of the "trinity" which was a very widely practiced and accepted concept in the pagan beliefs of the surrounding nations of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and Hindus many centuries before they were finally officially defined and "recognized" in the fourth century C.E. After this doctrine received the official support of the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, a massive campaign of death and torture was launched against all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the modified and expanded Pauline doctrines.

Agboriotejoye:


Another tissue of lies. If so, why did Muhammad tell his followers to beat their wives. Are the wives worse than slaves?

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an

Agboriotejoye:


The defect is in the translation you ignoramus. Not in the original message and meanings

Your Quran however remains a product of plagiarism. Know this, know peace

lol ao lies have been translated for you fooools to consume blindly

Show me some examples of thesee 'grave defects' in the Bible:

So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"

Ibkhaleel001:
Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you di**!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Let us look at the following Sayings from our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4086)"

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: "I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)"

If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"

The above Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him are very straight forward. If a Muslim beats his slave, then the gates of hell will open for him. Muslims must not mistreat their slaves, because slaves in Islam are like brothers:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Narrated AbuDharr: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab, Book 41, Number 5142)"





2- Slaves are not meant to be slaves, because eventually they will all be set free. A slave in Islam can request and be granted his freedom from his master:

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:



Slaves can request and get their freedom from their Muslim Masters:

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-

Agboriotejoye:


Answer the question oga. What about the male slaves?

Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you di**!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Agboriotejoye:


Answer the question oga. What about the male slaves?

Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you die!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Agboriotejoye:


Yes. The Bible is faultless. I can't say that of the Quran which was plagiarism to start with

In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):

"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)

"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

Truthissupreme:
I am really enjoying your comic relief
Matthew 14:13

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 16:15

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Jesus actually was worshipped you said no it's not worship

I pointed out it was worshipped with the acknowledgement of him as God, you are dumb fonded

You have agreed that Jesus existed before his birth or time yet he wasn't an angel you are still asking how it makes him God when Peter called him God and he commended Peter as saying the truth instead of rebuking him.

You foolishly say nothing special about Jesus Even though the works of creation which only Allah claims he is the best of was also done by Jesus who gave life to objects

Nothing special about Jesus but Muslims argue that when Jesus said he was sending someone he was referring to Muhammad

Does this mean Jesus sent Mohamed because it takes the greater to send the lesser yet you claim Jesus wasn't higher than Mohamed.

Is it your quran we should now believe, your corrupted Quran that says Imran was the father of Moses/Aaron and also the father of Mary

You dull sha

Mind you the quoted is all coming from Jesus and peter directly not from Paul you want to use as excuse

Where then did our modern Bibles come from?

The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.

All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible?

Agboriotejoye:


Hahahahaha

Lies!! Ok then. What about the male slaves? How do you end slavery in that regard? Besides, we all know, Islam never preached because the prospect of enslaving people appealed to them.

The truth sounds like lie to you?

Dull dead brain!!!

So are all Christians evil and deceitful?

Does this mean that all Christians are conniving traitors to the words of God? Very definitely yes! .

Agboriotejoye:



I guess Muhammad wrote the Quran himself abi? BTW, who is the true successor to Muhammad, Ali or Rashul?

You see your life? How you are disgracing yourself!

Lol go get to know about the four rightly guided caliphs..

Back to bussiness!

Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let meask the Christian scholars themselves if you cant answer

Agboriotejoye:


Compendium of lies. Newton wrote nothing on new testament. Go and throw away that plagiarized text you call Quran

Denying the truth will never save you tonight....

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

How comes?

Ibkhaleel001:
Sir Isaac Newton On The Bible

In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton (died 1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."   Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous.   Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication.  Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."

Newton on I John 5:7

Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.  When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.  In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.  "Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none.  If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best."

Newton on I Timothy 3:16

Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

Agboriotejoye:


What about slaves captured in war. Does this verse also cover them?

Sir Isaac Newton On The Bible

In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton (died 1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."   Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous.   Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication.  Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."

Newton on I John 5:7

Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.  When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.  In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.  "Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none.  If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best."

Newton on I Timothy 3:16

Agboriotejoye:


What about slaves captured in war. Does this verse also cover them?

Has not the Qur'an actually legalized adultery by allowing for
the master to have sexual relationships with his female slaves?

Female slaves are the natural by-product of the system of
slavery. The situation that prevailed in all societies where the institution
of slavery existed was such that slave women were used at will and
were employed to gain economic advantage by inciting them towards
prostitution. As for Islam, it provided for a facility which would, in the
course of one generation, bring an end to the system through the slave
women themselves.
The slave woman is the property of the master. However, the
master has no right, whatsoever, to incite her towards adultery. Like
the male slaves, the female slaves, too, have rights of their own. It is
the duty of the master to provide her with food, shelter, clothes and
other necessities. Moreover, the Qur'an has asked the owner to make
the necessary arrangements for her marriage as well (Qur'an 24:32).
This, in effect, means that the Qur'an has prompted the owner
towards having sexual relations with an unmarried female slave. This
permission is however restricted to the owner alone. No one else is
allowed to use her in this fashion even if it be with the permission of
the master!
In giving birth to the child of the master, the slave woman
becomes entitled to new rights. Thenceforth, the master has no right
to sell her. She becomes the mother of her master’s children. These
children, too, become entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by
the master’s other children. Islam disagrees with the Jewish stand
that the children born through a slave woman have none of the rights
that should naturally be given to them by virtue of paternity. These
children are, in all respects, his own children. There is to be no
discrimination of any kind between them and the other children. With
the death of the master, the slave woman, who is the mother of his
children, becomes a free woman. She is then protected by her own
children. They, too, like the other children, will becomes entitled to a
share in their father’s inheritance.
The permission to accept slave women as one’s life-partner
was, in fact, a provision which would, in the course of one generation,
cut out the very root of slavery. In reality, therefore, the permission
granted for having relations with slave women was one among the
many unique steps taken by Islam in practically eradicating slavery.
It is not possible to equate the permission given for having
relations with slave women to adultery. These acts stand at two extreme
poles. One is the case of the woman who lives under her master
enjoying the protection that he confers upon her. It is a relationship in
which he fully agrees to take up the responsibilities that may result as
a product of that relationship. It is a relationship in which her personality,
beyond the contours defined by sex, is accorded full recognition. It is
a relationship which opens to her the door to freedom. As for the
second, it is nothing but a carnal relationship with a prostitute without
any sort of commitment.

Agboriotejoye:


What about slaves captured in war. Does this verse also cover them?

If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.

For a closer look at reliability of the NT and its development dont forget to check out Is the NT really reliable ?

Agboriotejoye:


Lies!! Muhammad was a womanizer and forced his religion on people under threat of death. Can you show us who Muhammad ever preached to like Christ preached to Nicodemus? It was always through subterfuge and force. What a prophet!! What a religion!!

Is the entire Bible truely the word of GOD?

No credible Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. So, if the authors of the Bible were people other than Jesus, then did they have Jesus or the Holy Spirit in them guiding their hands and dictating to them word for word what to write? As it happens, once again the answer is no. Who says so? The majority of today's credible Christian scholars do.

Agboriotejoye:


Let me help you. He was given exception. Just like Muhammad!!

Wrong interpretation of Christianity? Or a complete failure of receiving the Holy Spirit?

You Christians might argue and say something like:

"Ok, but even if you're right, then so what?! How does this disprove Christianity?! At the worst case, it only shows that Christians are wrong in interpreting their Holy Scriptures. That's all!"

This statement is full of problems. Here are the reasons:

1- Almost the entire religion of Christianity is built on the alleged inspirations of the Holy Spirit.

2- The New Testament (Christianity's main scriptures) promises over and over and over that the Holy Spirit will inspire its followers, lead them, and protect them from:

False guidance.
Bewitchment of demons.
Not only that, but Christians are so fond on declaring that it is the Holy Spirit that is inspiring them and even speaking through their mouths when they preach Christianity. Therefore, if the overwhelming majority of all Christians (almost the entirety of all Christians world-wide and throughout history) utterly and completely failed to receive the Guidance of the Holy Spirit to prevent them from eating pork and violating the Sabbath, while GOD Almighty supposedly in Isaiah 65 and 66 repeatedly cursed those who eat pork till the last day of this life, then either Isaiah 65 and 66 are lies, or Christianity is a lie. And Christianity would be a lie in either case, because it is standing on the Old Testament. Therefore, if Isaiah is a lie, then Christianity is also a lie.

Agboriotejoye:


Imagine the shamelessness. Your prophet was indulging in contract marriage and hyper-gamy and you're proud to say it.
I hope you won't come and criticize yahoo boys who marry old women for US citizenship tomorrow o

Besides, why will the prophet be given exception? Does that mean that he is above the laws given to him to mankind? What makes him above the law? If he who received the law will not keep it, why should I keep it? Have you asked yourself this before? Your prophet don run you street boss.

Isaiah 65 & 66 alone declare Christianity to be a false religion!

Agboriotejoye:


Imagine the shamelessness. Your prophet was indulging in contract marriage and hyper-gamy and you're proud to say it.
I hope you won't come and criticize yahoo boys who marry old women for US citizenship tomorrow o

Besides, why will the prophet be given exception? Does that mean that he is above the laws given to him to mankind? What makes him above the law? If he who received the law will not keep it, why should I keep it? Have you asked yourself this before? Your prophet don run you street boss.

Can a woman be forced into marriage in Islam?

Absolutely not! Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding this issue:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said: "A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him): How her (virgin's) consent can be solicited? He (the Holy Prophet) said: That she keeps silence. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3303)"

Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

The following Saying is an explanation to Noble Verse 4:19:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "About the Qur'anic verse: 'It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the woman (of your deceased kinsmen), nor (that) ye should put constraint upon them.' When a man died, his relatives had more right to his wife then her own guardian. If any one of them wanted to marry her, he did so; or they married her (to some other person), and if they did not want to marry her, they did so. So this verse was revealed about the matter. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2084)" So according to Noble Verse 4:19, a woman can not be forced into marriage by any mean.

Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2088)"

Agboriotejoye:


It pain am!

Hilarious indeed!



Any pornographic and drunkard bible follower, the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", would've enjoyed her for at least one night and then divorced her, that if he would even divorce her!


Thank you Mr. Dull xtian for helping me prove the Beauty of our beloved Prophet Muhammad!



Again, Prophet Muhammad's wives were mostly divorced and widow women. His marriages were for mainly political reasons. If he married a woman from a tribe, then he'd save the Muslims bloodshed and battles with that tribe, and ultimately, that tribe would embrace Islam through this marriage.

Agboriotejoye:


It pain am!

I will keep disgracing you malo!

How come Leviticus 20:10 was compromised in the Bible and was never applied to King David?! Didn't King David know about this law? Yet, the Jews use his star as their holy symbol; the David Star, and the Christians call Jesus his son; "Son of David".

It seems to me quite clearly that the Bible is nothing but a compromised corrupted Book as Jeremiah 8:8, 2 Samuel 11:2-4 and Leviticus 20:10 suggest.

If the strong eats the weak in the Bible, then what moral and wisdom are we to learn from this book?

Agboriotejoye:


Quran can't have the moral stand to declare anything corrupt when it is a plagiarized text itself. How does all this your story change the plagiarized nature of Quran?
FYI, The gospel according to John was written by John The Beloved not The Baptist. The Epistle was also written by him. You are simply ignorant. Go and face your plagiarized text which commands you to cut off people's head.

Is the Bible a womanizer for allowing polygamy in NT and OT?

What about the Bible's Prophets' marriages?

When we read the Bible, we learn about some Prophets marrying many wives, even hundreds of wives in some cases. Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

And knowing that the Bible's Old Testament allowed before for men to have sex with girls who were at the age of 3, then it wouldn't surprise me that those Prophets who had 700 wives for instance, had many very young teenage girls before as their wives.





3- What about the X-Rated Pornography in the Bible?

When we read the Bible, we learn about some weird pornographic teachings that are certainly not appropriate for anyone with morals to read. Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible to see the many pornographic verses in the Bible. You will read for instance, about Solomon's wife's vagina tastes like wine for him!

You will also see examples of Prophets sleeping with their neighbor's wives, such as the following:

David watches a woman bathe, likes what he sees, and "goes in unto her." Let us look at 2 Samuel 11:2-4

Agboriotejoye:


Yeah. Your prophet was not a womanizer but he married eleven women. He even snatched the woman from the poor guy. Haba!! Talk about covetousness. Isn't that a sin in your books?
Did she request to be married to him or he married her as a war booty. Prophet wey dey acquire slaves. That one na prophet?

Islamic critics tend to criticize Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) because he had more than four wives. They ask, "If the Quran limited each man to have 4 wives (Surah 4:3) then how come the Prophet was able to have more?"

Some people may see this as a privilege to the Prophet. However, with privileges did come restrictions as well.

Qiyam Al Layl (prayers at two third of the night) are not compulsory on Muslims, however they were compulsory on the Prophet.

Surah 17:79

And during a part of the night, pray Tahajjud beyond what is incumbent on you; maybe your Lord will raise you to a position of great glory.

This verse is directly addressed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). (See Tafsir of Ibn Kathir)

So here we see an example of God making exceptions to Prophet Muhammad in certain situations.


Back to the issue of the exception of why the Prophet was allowed to keep more than four wives. Well there was wisdom behind the marriage to each of the wives of the Prophet

His marriages were for mainly political reasons. If he married a woman from a tribe, then he'd save the Muslims bloodshed and battles with that tribe, and ultimately, that tribe would embrace Islam through this marriage.

Agboriotejoye:


Muhammad could copy from it because the book were available in Mecca and Medina. Bahira tutored Mohammed on Coptic Christianity. Kadijat's cousin was also a Christian. There were Jews in both Mecca and Medina in those days. So there is no way Muhammad will claim ignorance of the Torah and Bible as they were popular texts in his days. Have you ever wondered why all the main characters in the Quran were people of Jewish descent? The story of creation, of Noah, Abraham, Moses and even Jesus are similar to those found in the Torah and Bible. How come? Was Muhammad a Jew? What is his business with Moses, David, Joseph and other Jewish people? It's obvious he plagiarized those texts. How come he was looking to impose his religion on others. Mecca was a multi-religious society just like Nigeria is. Muhammad raised conflict simply because he wanted his brand of religion to be the dominant one. He converted their Kaabah to his. Their black stone he converted to his as well. Where is the mention of Kaabah or black stone in the Torah? Every evidence point to Muhammad plagiarizing the Jewish religion. Simple.

Apart from your number 1,7,8 and 9, I do not see anything worth responding to in your so-called contradictions. Those are errors of numbers which any individual can make. So to claim that proves the Torah/Bible is fake is a joke really because both texts never claimed to be revealed to the writers. Instead, they were accurate recordings of events by humans who tried to keep it as accurate as possible. Your Quran also became a subject of debate or have you never heard of burning of scrolls that did not align with the views of Bukhari? It is thus safe to say you are practicing Bukahri's religion and not Muhammad's.

1 John 5:7 was removed because of doubts in its interpretation, not whether it existed or not. Since the Greek words usually could take on multiple meaning, any such words which were unclear and whose context was also doubtful was usually removed. Note though that 1 John is a letter from Apostle John the Beloved to Jerusalem. It is not part of the Gospels of Jesus Christ so I do not see how removing anything from their tarnishes the Bible. Jesus said in John 14 that "I and my Father are one". He also said in the same chapter that "I am in the Father and he is in Me". So that settles that.

As for your number 7, it is not that Jesus Christ told his disciples that John is Elijah What Jesus said is Elijah has come and they have done to him what they will. Whereas, John said he is not Elijah. The question then is how is that a contradiction? If Jesus said John is Elijah, it would have been different. But it is generally accepted that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist as Elijah. So I wonder what exactly you see there as a contradiction. The fact is John came as a forerunner for Jesus. But he was in no way a product of reincarnation. If John was aware that he is Eijah, that will mean he was a reincarnation. Now let me ask. Do you Muslims believe in reincarnation? If you do show me in your books were reincarnation is written.
8. How exactly is a cross and a tree different? Are both not made from wood?
9. Jesus had not even ascended to heaven at the time he was speaking. He was answering Nicodemus who was wondering how one could be born again. The verse 11 says "We speak of what we know" then in 13 he says no one has ascended into heaven except he who comes from heaven. In other words. No one has been to heaven amongst them who were in that gathering except for him who came down from heaven. So Jesus was not making a general statement about ascension from heaven because he had not even ascended then. It's just like an American saying no one has been to America except I who came from America. Will that indicate he is saying no one has gone to America from Nigeria?

Quran declares all Bibles are corrupt.


When was the New Testament written??

The church thoroughly admits that NT is badly altered, and earliest copies of NT don't date before year 200. So not only the Aramaic original language of Jesus was never documented, hence his original sayings are permanently lost, but the Greek writings (a language Jesus never spoke) had been badly corrupted. Trinity and all its faulty analysis are based on writings that are totally off (different language and phrases spoken altogether) and utter nonsense.


Catholics tell Protestants that their religion is false because it was
originated in year 1507 by Martin Luther while the Catholic church
was original and is a continuation to what Jesus' apostles/disciples
built and preached. Protestants respond by demonstrating the great
deal of corruption and alteration done, and how the scriptures of
the Bibles' (plural) New Testaments were written 200+ years
after Jesus, and how the traditions are marred with corruption.
Muslims answer both polytheist trinitarian pagans by inviting them
to Islam, because Islam came to restore the original Faith of GOD
Almighty, and Islam is GOD Almighty's Divine Truth.

no one knows regarding the "Gospel of John":

Who wrote it.
How many people wrote it.
When it was written.
Where it was written.
Also, when one reads this gospel, he would immediately notice that it was not written by John himself. Christians say that it was John the Apostle writting about John the Baptist. The evidence in the quotes above clearly proves that this is a desperate lie! I submit to you that neither John wrote anything! Let us look at the following verses from the gospel:

"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"

"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"

"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"

etc...

Whoever wrote the gospel, was he appointed or inspired by GOD Almighty? If yes, then who is that man? It can't be John for it is quite obvious from the above verses and many more throughout the gospel that John wasn't the original author. One has to be ridiculously biased and blind in faith to deny that.

[s]

Agboriotejoye:


Muhammad could copy from it because the book were available in Mecca and Medina. Bahira tutored Mohammed on Coptic Christianity. Kadijat's cousin was also a Christian. There were Jews in both Mecca and Medina in those days. So there is no way Muhammad will claim ignorance of the Torah and Bible as they were popular texts in his days. Have you ever wondered why all the main characters in the Quran were people of Jewish descent? The story of creation, of Noah, Abraham, Moses and even Jesus are similar to those found in the Torah and Bible. How come? Was Muhammad a Jew? What is his business with Moses, David, Joseph and other Jewish people? It's obvious he plagiarized those texts. How come he was looking to impose his religion on others. Mecca was a multi-religious society just like Nigeria is. Muhammad raised conflict simply because he wanted his brand of religion to be the dominant one. He converted their Kaabah to his. Their black stone he converted to his as well. Where is the mention of Kaabah or black stone in the Torah? Every evidence point to Muhammad plagiarizing the Jewish religion. Simple.

Apart from your number 1,7,8 and 9, I do not see anything worth responding to in your so-called contradictions. Those are errors of numbers which any individual can make. So to claim that proves the Torah/Bible is fake is a joke really because both texts never claimed to be revealed to the writers. Instead, they were accurate recordings of events by humans who tried to keep it as accurate as possible. Your Quran also became a subject of debate or have you never heard of burning of scrolls that did not align with the views of Bukhari? It is thus safe to say you are practicing Bukahri's religion and not Muhammad's.

1 John 5:7 was removed because of doubts in its interpretation, not whether it existed or not. Since the Greek words usually could take on multiple meaning, any such words which were unclear and whose context was also doubtful was usually removed. Note though that 1 John is a letter from Apostle John the Beloved to Jerusalem. It is not part of the Gospels of Jesus Christ so I do not see how removing anything from their tarnishes the Bible. Jesus said in John 14 that "I and my Father are one". He also said in the same chapter that "I am in the Father and he is in Me". So that settles that.

As for your number 7, it is not that Jesus Christ told his disciples that John is Elijah What Jesus said is Elijah has come and they have done to him what they will. Whereas, John said he is not Elijah. The question then is how is that a contradiction? If Jesus said John is Elijah, it would have been different. But it is generally accepted that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist as Elijah. So I wonder what exactly you see there as a contradiction. The fact is John came as a forerunner for Jesus. But he was in no way a product of reincarnation. If John was aware that he is Eijah, that will mean he was a reincarnation. Now let me ask. Do you Muslims believe in reincarnation? If you do show me in your books were reincarnation is written.
8. How exactly is a cross and a tree different? Are both not made from wood?
9. Jesus had not even ascended to heaven at the time he was speaking. He was answering Nicodemus who was wondering how one could be born again. The verse 11 says "We speak of what we know" then in 13 he says no one has ascended into heaven except he who comes from heaven. In other words. No one has been to heaven amongst them who were in that gathering except for him who came down from heaven. So Jesus was not making a general statement about ascension from heaven because he had not even ascended then. It's just like an American saying no one has been to America except I who came from America. Will that indicate he is saying no one has gone to America from Nigeria?

[/s]
Trash!!!

Northern lawyers should ask for the execution of Kanu and Igboho for massacring their people. They are terrorist killers not freedom fighters.
There is absolutely no difference between these two killers and Shekau of Boko Haram. Shekau wanted to break up Nigeria and establish his own brand of Islamic Caliphate, Nnamdi Kanu wants to break up Nigeria and establish his own brand of bkack Jewish state and Igboho wants to break up Nigeria and establish his own brand of Juju tribal state. In the process they are all killing Northern Nigerians who they consider enemy soft targets. So where is the difference?

As the government hunts down and kills Boko Haram and their supporters, it must hunt down and kill all supporters of IPOB and Oduua terrorists.

Any leader of of terrorists group should be killed. No one should be spared because some terrorist newspapers are supporting him by calling him freedom fighter. It is their acts, not the name given to them by their supporters, that matter.

Government should order shoot at sight on any member or supporter of Kanu and Igboho as it ordered on supporters of Shekau. Killers deserved to die no matter name they are called or what cause they are fighting for. Kar a raina mana hankali mana.

If the Niger Delta states & their governments, their drunk mentally lazy bandit governors, their insatiable & unrepentant greedy elders, politicians & militant leaders cornering everything meant for the people had utilized the 6 trillion naira NDDC funds, additional tens of trillions of naira from statutory allocations, 13% derivation allocations, ecological funds, Ministry of Niger Delta funds, royalties & rents etc in the past 20 years to build the economy & infrastructure of Niger Delta, they won't be today shamelessly moving in & out of courts in Nigeria over VAT from beer & Lagos will be nowhere near Delta, Rivers or Akwa Ibom in IGR.
Now, they are instigating a VAT war with FG to cover the monumental failure in delivering governance to their people & the mindless terrorism on the people of Niger Delta recently uncovered in NDDC.
If citizens of Niger Delta are not already doped silly by ignorant primitive contrived emotions these leeches feed them daily, they should by now be asking them questions!

They should be telling them to give account of the trillions they collected at least in the past 20 years first before talking about collecting VAT revenue.

They should be telling them to implement local government financial autonomy first before demanding for fiscal federalism.


They should be telling them to respect & not interfere in the independence of the state houses of assembly & state judiciaries which are the two organs of government empowered by the constitution to check the excesses & misappropriation of resources by the governors if they are to trust their demands for fiscal federalism.
But sadly, they are applauding the bandits called state governors & their rapacious elders, politicians & militant leaders accomplices raping them front & back as they lead them by the nose once again as always in another wild goose chase distraction from the real issues of their underdevelopment, stagnation & destitution in the midst of plenty in the Niger Delta.
A pathetic shame indeed!

Truthissupreme:
I think I have taken enough time to educate you today

You have ended up fooling yourself completely

You claim Jesus isn't God, But you can't explain how he was existing before Abraham

You don't need to ask me stupid question because i already told you the logical answer is because he is God who isn't and wasn't bonded by space or time

Now you have boxed yourself in one corner and Abdul is confused, you say angels also existed before time but was Jesus an angel?

Your foolishness is also failure to know that angels didn't exist before time, God created Angels few days before man so they have a time of existence

Only God existed before time, don't you foolishly ask yourself who God was talking to when he said

Genesis 1:26

And God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness

Don't also give me your bullshit of the "US" is a translation because he obviously was talking to another entity and that entity can not be angels since angels don't have the triple built likeness of man.

God was creating man after his likeness of soul, spirit and body which he obviously had a likeness living in such multiplicity

Could that person not be Jesus with him all along?

Because only Jesus is defiling the existence of time by his affirmation

Only Jesus according to the Quran moulded a bird breathed into it and gave life to it

Not even Mohamed could try such, life come from the owner of life, God can not delegate such responsibility to even an angel let alone a prophet

So what's this recurring decimal showing Jesus is supernatural yet not an angel?

Until you answer my question why Jesus can exist before Abraham do not quote me on your shame

I know more than your imams if I also want to floor you like I did here about the Bible which you were running in defeat to translation excuse and stupid historians, lame assumptions, and faulty Islamic books that christianity existed before

Let me once again disgrace you! Even the pope can not save your stinking ass today!

Even if we agree to your bias claim Jesus existing before Abraham doesn't prove that he is GOD Almighty.

In the Old Testament, the Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.

And as to "I am" that Jesus used, no it wasn't the same "I am" that GOD Almighty used in the Old Testament. GOD used "HO ON", while Jesus used "EGO EIMI".

If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost. How many people in that age would have said "I am," in answer to questions in everyday life. Billions. Are they all gods? Of course not!

Are you still lost?

Why did you insist in worshiping Jesus when he hates you and doesn't know you?

Remember he was only sent to the lost sheeps of israel

Truthissupreme:
I think I have taken enough time to educate you today

You have ended up fooling yourself completely

You claim Jesus isn't God, But you can't explain how he was existing before Abraham

You don't need to ask me stupid question because i already told you the logical answer is because he is God who isn't and wasn't bonded by space or time

Now you have boxed yourself in one corner and Abdul is confused, you say angels also existed before time but was Jesus an angel?

Your foolishness is also failure to know that angels didn't exist before time, God created Angels few days before man so they have a time of existence

Only God existed before time, don't you foolishly ask yourself who God was talking to when he said

Genesis 1:26

And God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness

Don't also give me your bullshit of the "US" is a translation because he obviously was talking to another entity and that entity can not be angels since angels don't have the triple built likeness of man.

God was creating man after his likeness of soul, spirit and body which he obviously had a likeness living in such multiplicity

Could that person not be Jesus with him all along?

Because only Jesus is defiling the existence of time by his affirmation

Only Jesus according to the Quran moulded a bird breathed into it and gave life to it

Not even Mohamed could try such, life come from the owner of life, God can not delegate such responsibility to even an angel let alone a prophet

So what's this recurring decimal showing Jesus is supernatural yet not an angel?

Until you answer my question why Jesus can exist before Abraham do not quote me on your shame

I know more than your imams if I also want to floor you like I did here about the Bible which you were running in defeat to translation excuse and stupid historians, lame assumptions, and faulty Islamic books that christianity existed before

Jesus was not unique in anything, except he was born from a virgin (see my response)!

People too in the Bible's Old Testament did bring the dead back to life, cure the blind and heal the sick. How about considering them GOD Almighty Himself also? Read 1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:34, 2 Kings 6:17,20, 2 Kings 5:14, and 2 Kings 4:44 for more details.

And yes, the Jews did cause for several other Prophets to be stoned and killed before Jesus. How about considering these Prophets GOD Almighty Himself? Let us look at what Jesus said about the Jews killing their Prophets:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 23:37)"

Here we clearly see that Jesus peace be upon him is giving up on the Jews. He preached the Truth to them for 3 years and saw not much fruits from them. He instead, saw nothing but arrogance and stubbornness.