₦airaland Forum

I think you need to reread the Bible; Below are excerpts on that very idea of "another comforter." All I did was do a simply google search; Jesus promised another comforter. And there came a tons of information. Please read; but pay attention that I see the writer making suggestions that he can not substantiate. Are these not changing the exact intents of Jesus, who made a very straight for ward statement?

So I started this conversation with you, and I tell you that "another Christian" would come and explain thisg further.
Who was the former Christian that was explaining things to you?

Jesus was the WITH-dwelling Holy Spirit. After Pentecost He would be the IN-dwelling Holy Spirit. The word "another" is from words meaning "more of the same" not "different." In both cases this is Lord Jesus Christ. Classical trinitarianism saw God manifest in three natures as His creature, mankind, is manifested physically as body, soul and spirit. Neo-trinitarianism, a liberal nineteenth century invention, holds that God is really three person-like beings who are one only because they are made of the same God stuff.

An Intercessor or Mediator comforts by bringing the one in need to the One who can supply that need. As our flesh with its senses is the mediator or intercessor between the visible world and our invisible spirit, God Himself became flesh to become the Mediator between Flesh and Spirit. Only One who had been both flesh and Spirit would qualify.

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 2 Corinthians 5:18

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:19

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christs stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

Another Comforting Holy Spirit was Christ in Spirit

Jesus was both Father and Son among His disciples as He led them to "build a family name."

That is, His outward body reflected His inward, invisible Mind or Spirit.

When He returned to His glory, the Apostles would feel destitute or like orphans who had lost their father.

Jesus promised that He would not leave permanently but would be with and in them as Spirit of Truth or Mind.

If He did not return as full Deity the apostles would be orphans or fatherless because the Holy Spirit has never been illustrated as Father. Jesus told the worried apostles:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15 {Was this not the same position that all prophets held?}

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [parakletos], that he may abide with you for ever; John 14:16 {Note that another was a qualifier for Comforter here. Jesus disciples did not need any explanation of "another comforter," since they knew what a former comforter is, which automatically gave insight to what the future "another comforter, " was going to be. Only a prophet, in this case Jesus was qualified as the former. hence another, a future comforter can not be anything else.}

Even the Spirit OF truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:17 {See how all of a sudden the deviations entered into the discuss?}

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:18 {Pattern of deceit by sutle suggestions. Thanks to the Bible writers for this type of mind game!}

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. John 14:19 {How is this not confusing?}

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. John 14:20 {You see how the deceit progressed to something that isdiffrent from what jesus meant?If just by the father being in Jesus, Jesus became the father, then by the same proxy, you Christians, or rather the didciples who Jesus addressed, will be Jesus first, and then God, since Jesus was in them! Everyone is therefore God. Is there a need for judgement day? Is there a need for death, since God can not die?}

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14:21 {But above, by insinuation, one can see how people progressed to be God. Now people are back to being just loved by Father? And i bet there is a verse in the New Testament, where Jesus is referred as master of men and a servant of God! This portion was dealing with slave and master relationship. Check it out yourself}

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? John 14:22 {This verse clearly made it a point to let us know that Iscariot was not the questioner. It is insinuating in my opinion that this portion was not penned during the earthly life of jesus. it must be sometimes after he was lifted up to heavens.}

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me,
, he will keep my words: and
, my Father will love him, and
, we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Fathers which sent me. John 14:24 {Read this verse again. It simply shows that God is the Sender of Jesus, who is a messenger. Between falacy and deceit, there remain some truth. How is it possible that a messenger all of a sudden becomes the Sender, when the messenger says that the sender is different from him? These are confusing and very convoluting premises}

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. John 14:25

But the Comforter [parakletos], which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26 {What did the holy ghost teach you? Tell me how it teaches you to take a shower, say after sexual intercourse? Tell me what it teaches you about deficating? Tell me what it teaches you about how to sleep, laying down? I want to know. Then I will tell you what Mu.hammad teaches about any and all subject you can imagine. If i don't know it, somebody here will tell you. Now you will know who the real "another Comforter,"is. You will know what jesus meant by "Comforters" since there were more than One.}

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you, If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28 {Read this very carefully; God is greater than Jesus; Do you see how this verse destroys the idea of 3 in !, Trinity? They are not equal or co-equal. This is enough proof for the Oneness of God. It is a proof for Jesus being a human messenger, since he is not equal to God!}

MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [parakletos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 1Jn.2:1 {See where he called grown men "little Children?" Could you believe anything that was said, again? If he used Father for God, would that really translate as his father, since "my little Children" would not mean that he was the father and that the people were all alot younger than him? Would it not be a metaphor for spirituality, whereby as a prophet, he was more advanced than his companions. Then God his Master and decision Maker?}

REPEAT
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:18

REPEAT
But the Comforter [parakletos], which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,

REPEAT
MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [parakletos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 1Jn.2:1

REPEAT
[A LIGH appeared] And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. Ac.22:8



THE COMFORTER IS:

Parakletos (g3875) par-ak'-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler: - advocate, comforter.

The Comforter would bear the name JESUS CHRIST:

Jn.14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

FATHER-SON WOULD SEND THE SPIRIT:

Jn.16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

THEREFORE, HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST:

1Jn.2:1 MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon

Allos

I. Some other. II Repeated. allos kai allos, one or two; allo kai allo one thing after another

II. rarely like alloios, of other sort, different, Il.: hence

Does NOT mean alloios [allos] I. of another sort or kind, different

Similar words

eita used to denote the Sequence of one act or state upon another

I. of Sequence in time, without any notion of Cause, then, next

epischerô , Ep. Adv., ( [scheros] ) in a row, one after another

II. of Time, tris e. thrice successively, by degrees

loipos remaining over,

homos [akin to hama] one and the same, common, joint, Lat. communis, Hom., Hes.; homa phronein to be of one mind, Hes.

hama [Cf. homou, Lat. simul.]

I. at once, at the same time, Hom., etc.

II. prep. c. that. at the same time with, together with

Jesus very clearly said that the another Comforter would be pure or Holy Spirit. However, He said that this was the same Spirit Who presently dwelled with the apostles in the form of flesh. After Pentecost, this "another" in a different form would dwell in them. From Paul we understand that He would live in the heart, spirit or mind of believers through the Word. Let's look at that again:

Christ as God left His Majesty to dwell in a human body.

Therefore, Christ as Spirit Sent Himself to be flesh.

The Father would send another Comforter Who could remain. The word is not heteros but homos: a fuller Spirit Christ.

This was the Spirit of Truth or Truth in Spirit form.

This Spirit of Truth dwelled with the apostles even as Jesus spoke.

This Spirit of Truth would dwell within the Apostles after Pentecost.

Jesus would not personally leave them orphans or without a Comforter

Then He said, "I will come to you."

The Spirit as both Father and Son would live in those who kept His commandments.

Another Husband of the Church was Christ as Holy Spirit

Paul confirms that the another would be heteros or different yet the same Spirit being. For instance, the death of Christ meant that the old marriage contract with the Law was dead. We simply die to the old, destructive "marriage." Then we are married to another Who will be Spirit instead of the first which was flesh or law. Let us look at that again:

Jesus was the present Spirit of Truth, Father or Comforter in the flesh.
As Father-Son in Spirit form He would be Another Comforter.

Paul shows how this works:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another (heteros), even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Romans 7:4

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit (as "children" unto death. Romans 7:5

The another and different was the same Jesus Christ Who had been raised from the dead by the Spirit which dwelled in Him. He was certainly different in the sense that He was the first born from the dead never to die again. He was another in the sense that He returned to the Spirit dimension.

If we are married to the Christ "person" and have fruit by the Holy Spirit "Person" as a separate "relative of the God family" (Boles) we wonder if we are a polygamists. The fruit of the Spirit (Comforter or father so they won't be orphans) is the fruits by Jesus Christ.

being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. Philippians 1:11

After His resurrection, Christ appeared in another form but He was still Jesus Christ with the nail prints in His hands:

And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. Mark 16:11

After that he appeared in another (altered) form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. Mark 16:12

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Mark 16:14

The Another or Different Comforter was Christ

The two words for another have much the same meaning. As another Comforter Jesus would be in Spirit form. This would be different because it would be as a fuller, but invisible, Intercessor. As another husband the Jews would be "married" to the resurrected Christ. As we noted, the fruit of the Spirit would be the fruit by the Husband-Father Jesus Christ. Look at the two proofs that the another Comforter is the another husband:

Jesus said that He would come as the another Comforter or in a different form. It would be more of the same thing:

Allos (g243) al'-los; a prim. word; "else," i.e. different (in many applications): - more, one (another), (an-, some an-) otherwise

Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." Matthew 13:33

Like the promise to us, Jesus was changed:

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1Co.15:51

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Co.15:52

A moment means "indivisible time" or outside of time:

Atomos (g823) at'-om-os; from 1 (as a neg. particle) and the base of 5114; uncut, i.e. (by impl.) indivisible [an "atom" of time]: - moment

Allasso (g236) al-las'-so; from 243; to make different: - change.

And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Heb 1:10

They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; Heb 1:11

And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. Heb.1:12

Paul said that the another was Christ. He was different from the flesh or law. The different Christ would be in Spirit form:

Heteros (g2087) het'-er-os; of uncert. affin.; (an-, the) other or different: - altered, else, next (day), one, (an) other, some strange.

"For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village. Luke 9:56

The following passage shows that allos and heteros have much the same meaning:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different (heteros) gospel, Galatians 1:6

which is not another (allos); but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. Galatians 1:7

The another Who is different is the Spirit Christ Who is the another or in a fuller level of life. We are married to "Spirit" which is Christ and Gospel. As such, we bring forth fruit (children, fruit or offspring) from our husband and not from another person of the "god family" who would be different. The fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of Christ because He is now pure (not mixed) or Holy Spirit:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Galatians 5:22

And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Galatians 5:24

If we belong to Christ as pure or holy Spirit then the fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of Christ Who is pure Spirit. Christ does not need a junior "relative" to be His surrogate husband.

Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father was Sent By Jesus Christ

Christ was another in that He, Who was God, laid aside the garments of majesty and glory. Christ as God was revealed or manifest in the fleshly tabernacle or house of a human being. He died in the flesh but self-resurrected by the "Sending" Spirit Who had lived in his body. He returned and sat down beside the majesty of the Father or Sender which He had laid aside to become flesh. As Jesus said of the voice from Heaven, "This is for your benefit." In the same way, God's manifestation as Father-Son is for our benefit as we associate ourselves with an invisible Father Spirit. However, it does not define a literal Father who literally sired a literal son.

In this sense, the Word (like our words) proceeded from the Father through His breathed "Spirit." This was Jesus Christ as fully God laying aside His own glory and taking on the "body prepared for me." When Jesus Christ was Glorified to sit in heavenly places, He "received the promise" of the Father. He then laid aside any other "form" and proceeded from the Father to serve in pure or Holy Spirit Form:

Remember that the Word was God. He laid aside His Godly privileges and became a human being. When He returned to the Spirit realm He "sat down" beside the glory He laid aside to become a man. As Father-Son Jesus Christ could say: "I will send you from the Father." He did not say, "the Father will send Spirit without me."

The Spirit would proceed from the Father

When the Son Sent Him

Therefore, the Father and Son are One. Not two, side-by-side but Spirit in flesh.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. John 15:27

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:6

Again, when Jesus Christ returned to His own throne or rule, and when He said I will send He meant that the Mind of Truth would proceed from the Father. At the same time He said: "I will come to you." The Apostles would know, and confess, that the Spirit presence was Christ the Spirit.

But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. John 16:4

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: John 16:8

As God the Father spoke through Jesus Christ the Son as He dwelled fully in him, after Christ's returned to receive back that which He laid aside to become human, He would come again in Spirit form. His presence in Spirit form would not be an evil spirit but a Holy Spirit. It would be Jesus Christ, full Deity, speaking through Spiritual or mental means:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. John 16:12

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John16:13

He shall glorify (render glorious) me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:14

Because God manifested Himself in flesh or Son, whatever belonged to the Father belonged to the Son. This could not be true unless they are the same Spirit Being illustrating Himself as Father-Son.

The only way that John Doe can have everything which belongs to the President of John Doe Company is that John Doe is the President of John Doe Company. If only in their separate identity and being able to "stand side by side and face to face and hold committee meetings," it could not be said that everything the First Person had belonged to the Second Person. The Son could not have everything the Father has and still need to hold "committee meetings." The identity is stated by Jesus: "My Father and I are One" in a numerical sense:

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. John 16:16

Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? John 16:17

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. John 16:28

In a figurative sense, when God laid aside His Majesty and glory and put on the garment of flesh, in some sense He escaped from His invisible, Spirit form and became visible:

Ecerchomai (g1831) ex-er'-khom-ahee; from 1537 and 2064; to issue (lit. or fig.): - come (forth, out), depart out of, escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad.

This does not speak of the "Son person" taking leave of the "Father and Spirit" persons. Rather, when He laid aside His glory He came out of His Spirit form to be flesh. Other uses of this word illustrate this:

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Matthew 2:6

Jesus showed how a Spirit can come out of one form of dwelling and enter into another:

And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. Matthew 8:32

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Matthew 12:43

Again, Jesus said clearly that:

I will not leave you comfortless (Fatherless): I will come to you. John 14:18

Christ Returned as Holy Spirit to Continue His Teaching to the Apostles

As a human, Christ began the teaching process. This was to prepare a few selected men who would be apostle-prophets and confirm without a doubt that He was God with them as Isaiah prophesied. However, as a man-to-man communicator He was limited because His audience was limited. He would have to "get into their mind" or spirit to finish the work:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. John 16:12

When the Spirit of Truth came it was not be a "co-equal" god better equipped to make this "the age of the Holy Spirit" than either of the other "members of the god family." No. This Spirit of Truth would be in their minds or spirits in a "direct operation sense." He would not even have a single word with which to finish the work of Father-Son.

As Jesus as full Deity spoke it would be understood by a Spirit-to-spirit communication. In the same way, my mouth (double-edged sword) blows air or wind or spirit to form words. God the Spirit would do this in ways we do not understand.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (The I in Spirit Form), is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16:13

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. Jn 16:14

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

The Word, Who was full Deity, sat down or assumed the authority and privileges as God and it was Jesus Christ Who poured out everything which was both seen and heard.

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise (announcement) of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 2:33

The Word, Who was God, sent Himself as the Son. As the Son He had the Father with Himself

The same Glorified Word, Who returned to His Majesty then sent His Spirit or Mind. When Jesus sent the Spirit or Mind, typified by tongues, it came from Himself as the Father or Sender. In another analogy, the Father is the Sender while the Son is the Sendee. The Spirit is the Mind of Full deity which God was competent to put into words.

Note the logical sequence:

Christ was God Who laid aside His glory as Father to become the Son

He said that the Comforter was presently with them but would later be in them.

Christ would return and "sit down" beside the Glory and Majesty He laid aside to put on a human body.

He promised to send another Comforter and said "I will come to you."

This would be because He had more things to teach them which could not occur as flesh o flesh but must be Mind to mind.

The Holy Spirit as "another form" would proceed from the Father

This meant that Christ as full Deity would send the "another form" to live in the mind.

The Spirit of truth or "the mental disposition of God's Mind" would not be a separate person with His own thoughts and words. Rather, the Mind in the minds of the apostles would deliver the words coming from God's own Mind.

The Spirit would come wearing the name Jesus Christ because Holy Spirit is not a name.

When the "another comforter" guided Paul into all truth it was the Spirit form of Jesus Christ.

When the Spirit prevented Paul from something it was the Spirit of Christ or Christ in Spirit form.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, Colossians 2:9

Kenneth Sublett

Did you read the above that you posted or did you just find something that spoke on the matter and didn't bother to read it?
If in fact you did read it, from what the person said, who is the "former" comforter and who is the "another" comforter?
Please strictly from the post above not from the Bible or the Qu'ran, I want to make sure you can truly read and understand english (not to be offensive).
Thank you

They did not have a singular belief about Jesus relationship with God. Please understand that even today, there are Christian sects (call them what you want), who believe differently from you

Yeah different sects have different views, but this group of men who put the compiled the Bible to what it is today and who professed the nicene creed all agreed on the nature of Christ.

guess from his killing of Abraham's circumcision rites and the eradication of Moses dietary laws and the introduction of Trinity as a concept, you can not have a single belief, but truly many beliefs were in the play.

1. Paul did not eradicate the dietary laws, if you were a jew then continue as a Jew, but if not continue as you are, basically there is no discrimintaion with God.
2. Paul did not introduce the trinity concept, it was already there in the beginning, it is in the Torah
3. Leave Paul alone, he does not harm you

God wasn't the Author. You know it, but refuse to accept it. If God is the Author, would anyone have the right to even repalce a single letter from its place? Don't you see that in your today's Bible that there are no two "Versions," exactly alike? Please compare the catholic Douwy version with a King James Version of your choice.

Dude they say the same thing. Having an english or french or latin or german "interpretation" does not change the contents.
They still say the same thing. Removing a chapter does not show conflicting ideas.

While you have the writings of Paul, in the Bible (New Testament; the Old testament should be left until a Jew appears on Nairaland. But of course I do speak with many about their convolutions of religiousity. Mixing Judaism with Kabala and Buhddism. This is just an example), his letters could never be more that his opinions. These letters can never pass, word for word as Word of God. But unfortunately, the disciples of Jesus were 12. If we eliminate Judas iscariot, because of his death, we will still have 11 disciples. Where therefore are the remaining 7 Gospels?

There wasn't a mandate that all 12 twelve disciples should write a book. Those who wrote wrote, those who didn't didn't or have you forgotten the reason why they started writing. Most of the disciples were killed already, their deaths are recorded in the Bible.

But it is strange that each of the 4 Gospels in the Bible is accompanied by the "according to" phrasiology.

This is because it is speaking of the Gospel that Christ preached.

What qualifies one disciple while the other did not have a chance?

Stephen dies in 35 AD but a book by Stephen is written in 50 AD. would you accept this book as written by Stephen?

You do know that Is.lam is not shy about the corruptions of the Jews? The AlQur'an is very clear about it.

This still doesn't prove that the events are not historically accurate. The Qu'ran stating that the Torah is corrupt and that these events took place differently does not actually prove that these events took place differently. History shows that these events took place as recorded in the Torah and not the version you have in the qu'ran.

You will agree with me that Zachariah and his son John were both prophets. You will also agree with us that John is the one, according to the Bible who Baptized (Barmitva; a Jewish coming of age, normally done at age 13) Jesus. Jesus is also regarded in the Bible as a Prophet. Please tell me the part of the Bible that each of these people wrote?

They were also known as Rabbi, teacher, just as your Imams, which part of the Qu'ran have your Imams written? Where are your Imams' books?

Unfortunately, there are portions of the Bible that Paul wrote. It is very clear from your writing that you do not believe that there should be any prophet after jesus, at least among the children of Israel. Therefore, Paul could never be a prophet. But wait, was he an eyewitness? No. He never witnessed anything fromJesus, otherwise he would not be opposing Jesus followers in the first place before his transformation on the way to Syria. So Paul was not a prophet and was not an eyewitness, but his writing was prominent in the Bible. (Somebody provided a writing from Paul sometimes, which was giving us the impression that Paul was simply expressing his own opinion. We can not call that "inspiration from God," can we?).

hehehehehe
1. Paul is not regarded as a Prophet (as you would think)
2. Paul could clearly have been an eyewtiness, however not believing. There were plenty of eyewitnesses that never believed, that is why Christ died, remember?
3. He condemned those who followed Christ because he did not believe in Christ. To be an eyewtiness does not mean that you have to believe. He was around when Christ was still walking the earth, he was aware of what was going on, but until he had his personal encounter, he did not believe. Just like the rabbis didn't believe and those who eyewitnessed too didn't believe. they didn't understand and were also afraid, so they turned away.

Who are you to tell who, when, and how God inspires people?

Seriously man, you need to know about the Bible before you speak on it.

And a brother, Samba, spoke about immorality and punishment or justice protocol of it, you are asking him to demostrate it; It is you who should call him on what moral compass Christianity has. How do you deal with fornication or adultery? Forget whether punishment deters would be perpetrator to do it or not. But at least it prevents some who may think that they would have engaged in it, if there was no warning and punishment against it.

So the Bible tells us that we should all jump into one big orgy? Oh wait the Qu'ran does that.

So we're supposed to go about cutting the heads or any body parts of those who sin? When did humans become God and start placing judgment on people?

Have you forgotten about the 10 commandments? Or are you going to arfue that it is not in the Bible? Or are you going to argue that the New Testament does not hint on morality.

Romans 1:18 God's Wrath

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Moral Disorders

1 Corinthians 5 A case of incest
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]

Chapter 6 12 - 20 Sexual Immorality

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

These are a few examples of how immorality is condemned. It doesn't tell us to kill those who are immoral, but to dissociate from them. We are not to partake in their sin. We can love all, but stay away from their sin.

Sorry our God is not an evil God, but a God of love and he lets us know that he alone can judge. We are not to kill or disfigure or have hatred towards people, but towards sin.

You also challenged this brother to provide you with a roman or jewish writer of Jesus time who wrote about Jesus. It is you who should provide him with list of them and excerpts from their writings. At least one, will be sufficient to quell his accersion. By him throwing down the gauntlet, it is you who needs to walk it. He said there is none. Thats a proof all by itself. You have to produce one or list of them, otherwise he is correct.

You are right. I should be the one to, and so I will:

Tacitus for Annals and Historie (c. 55-120 C.E.) he wrote history for the years 14 - 96 C.E.

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out ,  Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed"

The above is a quote from Tacitus' works. I will get more info on this for you.

Suetonius (c. 70-135 C.E.):
  "Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Christus, he expelled them from the city, "

Emperor Claudius (c. 10 B.C.E.-54 C.E.)

Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion

     What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching of what he had given

These were words of wisdom he wrote to his son from prison.

I will get more information on all the above.

Tell us the name of the church started by Jesus? What deno ination? Which buiding in Jerusalem, galille, Naseren served as the first church, in the time that Jesus was on earth? What you just said is that Jesus had a diffrenet religion than Moses, since Moses did not practice Christianity? There are many words and ideas put in the mouth of jesus. Church is definitely one of them. Make your research and let us know

I actually thought I explained this to you, keep up man. Once again a church is not a building or a denomination. A church is the body (as in the people) of worshippers that follow in the footsteps of Christ. So Church is a body of people. As in I am a part of the body of Christ (Church).
It is not a religion but a way of life. Christians did not come up with the name Christians, honestly they were just going about preaching. Those who observed them called them Christians  as in those who follow Christ. So it's not like a religion that was coming in a new, no it was a belief/way of life. It was a continuation of the belief that God already established on earth, that he is One God, that he is almighty, that he is to be worshipped, that we are to love him and love ourselves and our neighbours (brethren, humans), we should obey his commandments, we should do good, we should live morally and stand up for justice. I hope you get the jist.
It wasn't some kind of rebellion that says o well we don't like the way these people are living so we'll just start our own and say that God spoke to us, kind of like muhaamad did.

But the Jews, since you mentioned them, do not believe in Jesus. That alone throws away your statement

Not believing in Jesus does not nullify his existence. They didn't believe in what he preached does not change that he didn't preach it.

@Lady I hope you'll take your time to read this meaningful piece of information

Cite your sources. I have read this on a bash the Christians cite. Site sources please.
Oh and if you want I can give you the real gist about Barnabas, Paul, and the issue of the so called three Gods.

As for my mum’s health – just as I said earlier. Everything is left to God. You may be surprised to hear that she is still seriously sick. It got to a point where she could not speak what we could hear, but we thank God that few days ago she started answering our calls on phone – gradually. The Doctors even instructed that her condition only need prayer. To us her children, it’s all fear and fear once our phones rings. Catholic Priests, societies and other denominations have been visiting and saying their prayers. From one hospital to the other until it was revealed that my mother is under attack and the 2 men who are hell bent to see her dead have been revealed. Reasons why they want her dead: She is bold to tell you your fault face to face - she can't be intimidated and for that reason she is applauded in my home town once she travels home. Only few people are allowed to visit her now.

My ggodness, the extent to which men go to make others suffer does not amaze me as I too have gone through that. But I can tell you ebos, Our God is almighty and all powerful, continue to call on his name and your mum will be delivered. I will pray for your mum, all the angels of the Lord will be at the doorsteps of those who plan evil against us. Mumsy will testify and praise the Lord.


Pam and Carl are fighting? I have been gone a while

Hello people, how are you? I know I haven't been contributing as mush here, I do apologise. I am busy with classes and work and when I come here, i spend most of my time showing those who do not believe in Christ and who want to label the Bible as false that they truly have no idea what is in the Bible. I hope you guys visit that thread (Gospel of Barnabas) and see what's going on.

I love you all.

May the Peace of Christ be with you all now and forever. Amen.

You do not have to be an eyewitness to know lies on a matter from the truth. A person who received a revelation on a matter (eg, Moses, Jesus, and Muhamm.ad (AS Jami'a), is better than an eyewitness.

Yeah except the eyewitness is actually the person who received the revelation who wrote the books. Moses wrote five books in the Bible. I guess he corrupted his revelation huh.

If Jesus did not receive relation about keeping the 10 Commandments, then it would have been easy to postulate, as the later generations did, about calling him god. It is the fact that the christians called him god that brought about the doctrine of trinity! Going back to the time of Jesus, one will have to agree that Jesus received revelations about  the 10 commandments, serving as a reminder for those who practice them and a warming for those who have not began to practice them.

Except Jesus himself spoke of the Holy Spirit to come. He spoke of the Father, called himself the Son, and told us he and the Father would send the Holy Spirit. Trinity. This was already in the Torah, but then again, it is also corrupt.

It just so happens that the prophets who wrote these books corrupted them and even though these books were written in different eras speaking the same thing, they were still corrupted. Those who corrupted the books of Moses, also came and corrupted the books of Isaiah and David and more.
Hmm such conspiracy. hmph!!!!

since he was strengthened with the Holy Spirit (Malaika Jibril).

Wait a minute so now there's a Holy Spirit.

From the rest of mankind, it is very clear then that the ones who know the prophets are those who were the eyewitnesses.  The eyewitness of Moses can not be higher than Prophet Abraham, or Zachariah in the matters that concerns Moses. But the eyewitnesses will be higher than the later genrations that came after them. Say those who were with Moses will know more about the accuracy of what Moses did more than those Children of Israel born immediately after Moses died. I would also believe that Moses will know about Jesus more than any of the disciples of Jesus. Jesus will also know more about Moses more than those people who were emancipated from Egypt in the Exodus of the Children of Israel.

Wow, this kind of reasoning na wa o. If the eyewitnesses will be higher than those that come after them, how then does Jesus know more about Moses than Moses' eyewitnesses, when Jesus was after the eyewitness. How can Moses know more about Jesus when they were centuries apart. Does you great great great great great great great great great grandfather know more about you than your children?

Moses wrote his books, Moses was his own eyewitness.

If you do not disagree with the facts that I laid out here about Moses and Jesus and their eyewitnesses to each other, then apply the same to Muhamm.ad in the matters about Jesus. Afterall, the Jews do not believe that Jesus is a prophet, the way the Christians do not believe Mu.hammad is a prophet.

I disagree, therefore I will not apply, so please see above.

If you are discussing the Bible as a whole, then know that the jews do not rekorn with the New Testament. Therefore that claim of bible as a whole is circumspect. But now, you will see that the Bible that you are talking about, a a whole has an old testament view of God, as being One. Then the new teastament view of God is a mix bag, sometimes it is One God, but then it has a doctrine of "Trinity," a word that it does not contain, whatsoever. Now tell me how do you reconcile the two opposing issues; which one is true? Which ever you chose will nullifies the other. For sure am limited, please present the unlimited argument, without forcing me to accept the obviously unacceptable.

Yeah this would be a good argument except you have no knowledge of Judaism and Christianity or else you will see that the Jews knew that there was a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit. It is in the Torah. The only difference is they don't believe that the Son already came. So the belief of the "Trinity" is already there even though they don't call it "Trinity" but they know that it exists.

From my initial presentation above about who to be believed, the eyewitness or the generations that come later, as long as none is a prophet, you will see that those who were with Jesus had better record tahn the immediate generation that came after it. The disciples of Jesus, whatever remained from the 12 and the rest of the eyewitnesses, they must be better at vouching for what Jesus did, than say Paul!

Lol, you do know that Paul did not write any of the Gospels right? You do know that the disciples wrote it right? Lol.
Like I said, you need to know the Bible. Moses the Prophet wrote books in the Bible too.
So now it is ok to accept the eyewitnesses ehn. Man when will your story stick. Show some consistency please. You remind me of McCain. One minute you say this, the next you say that. I told you, you contradict yourself.

Just to show you that even the records of these people were not as accurate as you had postulated, and it clearly lacked full inspirations from God, you will see that the recorded information on many events in the Bible differ from one Gospel to the other Gospel. (Some are recorded as arguments in showing the discrepancies in the Bible; please check them out yourself). The evidences are therefore not sufficient that if the eyewitness account is different from the earsay account, it is better to differ to the eyewitness. If we follow this thinking, then Paul's accounts will have to be discarded, whereever it differs to the eyewitness accounts.

1. You must really think that Paul had no relationship with the disciples, well your thinking is wrong, Paul did not "hearsay" he got the truth from the actual eyewitnesses
2. If I say tomato and you say tomatoe, are we speaking on the same thing or on different things.
3. The gospels are accurate. The concept is the same. If we both witness an event and give accords of it, will we use the exact same words? No. Will we have the same general idea? Yes!!!
4. Paul did not write a gospel

But since you have more than one version of event(s), if you take the accounts of the eyewitnesses, then the only one that can be accepted is what a future prophet of God says about the matter.

Lol, absolutely not. we witness the same event and give statements on it, our words won't match word for word, the situation is revisited and another person centuries later says that he received a revelation of the actual event and that these witnesses lied, would you believe the person who claims to receive a revelation.

Dear you still have to prove how Muhaamad is a Prophet.

This is why I will take the information from Jesus about Moses, while I will reject what the Jewish Scholars say about the same subject.

Except Moses is the one who wrote the books not the Jewish scholars. O yeah Jesus REITERATED THE SAME THING.

Afterall, M.uhammad went to heavens and back, in one part of a single night! This is enough to valid him, even from every argument anyone can present

You still have to prove that he went to heaven, showing me the event in the Qu'ran doesn't prove it.

But wait, is it not ironic that all he said before he spoke about what you disagree with, and what he said after what you disagree with all correct?

In order for me to answer this, you have to write legible english. Thanks.

While Bible lacks full detail about what happened to the body of Pharaoh, after he drowned, the AlQur'an, did not do an incomplete job. It spoke about the preservation of the body of the drowned Pharaoh. Please ask anyone you know with any knowledge about the body of this pharaoh. They will tell you that it is in Egypt. It was preserved, not by mummification, but all the sign that he drowned is well known. We must face the truth, when we are truly wanting to know it.

Which Pharoah is this?

So why are there conflicting accounts about the same event(s) in the Bible? Why are there some important information missing on one gospel and it is in another?

A chapter in my accounting book is missing and my friend has it, how does this show that our books are conflicting?

Why are some verses even relegated to common footnotes, in one version? Why are there so many versions without any two completely agreeing with each other, never mind all agreeing?

They all agree. Believe me I have read the King James version as well as the New American Bible, those two for a fact agree.

Don't let me display the different versions of the Qu'ran.

Why is the Catholic Bible have more books, than the Protestants'?

Once again, A chapter in my accounting book is missing and my friend has it, how does this show that our books are conflicting?

I am very certain that Algebra and the process of doing it, has changed since I left high scholl

Yeah we're talking about my memory and not yours. We're talking about the memory of the disciples. You can't use someone else's memory to describe the memory of the disciples.
You can't say well Matthew wrote his book 20 years after Christ died, and then talk about the memory of Paul. Be consistent.

It is you who have demostrated that you know little about what an entity actually said from what other entities said or allegedly said that the primary entity said. If you defend the Bible, without presenting a single verse that says that God directly said that He is the Only speaker, then you have done not so good a job

1. We never made a claim that God is the only "speaker" in the Bible. We've always said that everything written in the Bible is by the inspiration of God, God willing it to be written, God directing what the writer writes, therefore lending the authorship to God. God influences the thoughts of the writer. Please so not make a claim that we never claimed.
2. So every word in the Qu'ran is only from God? I thought Angel Gabriel was speaking and so was Muhaaamad

There is no way you can claim that the mundane details of spatial descriptions, in the Gospel is from God. There is no way that even the more mundate materials from the book of the act of the apostles are from God. Definitely, there is no way that you can proof that the details of the conversion of Saul to Paul is from God. Did God tell him to write that kind of narratives in the Bible? Will that be claimed to be words of God? Finally, all the epistles, letters to the churches, can they be called words of God? It is not possible. Let shed off the garment of pride and self deceit. Truth stands alone and falsehood has no helper.

If you mean directly spoken out of the mouth of God, no, and we never claimed that. If you mean influenced by God to be written down and conveying the message God wants his people to heed to, then yes it is by all means the Word of God.

Now that also rules out the Qu'ran because even you yourself said that Angel Gabriel is the speaker. Angel Gabriel is not God.

In the AlQur'an, Angel Gabreil transported all the revelations to Mu.hammad, except the last 4 verses, of Surah Baqarah, which he received directly, in heaven, at the same time that he received the specific methodology of the mus.lim prayers known as Salah. You are actually destroying your own primary premise. I am grateful to god about that. We can see that God does not come down, hence Jesus could not be God. (You have spoken the truth. I will give you that).

Don't assign to me a primary premise that I never held. You yourself claims that the Qu'ran is 100% word of God and here you are saying that Angel Gabriel spoke to Muhaamad, except in the last 4 verses, which means God himself didn't speak until the last 4 verses, so now who has been speaking all along?

Except that many lied and embellished. We still hear about people who are claiming that God is speaking to them, today. I remember Oral Robert who bullied his followers to pay out mant tens of million Dollars in one week or so. I remember Jim Baker's Carolina's organization. Pat Robertson is not doing bad at speaking to God. No, not at all. There are still many who calimed God speaking to them and it is very clear from their modus operanda that they are very far from God

Muhaamad falls in this category. God doesn't condone rape, stealing, raiding.

I wonder why some of the primary disciples of Jesus disagreed with Paul's process of evangelising, at the beginning? That was before they were brought in line to accept whatever Paul said

Dear they didn't trust Paul in the beginning because Paul was the one who ordered the death of Stephen one of the original disciples. For your information there were the disciples who agreed with Paul. They had an issue whether or not the gentiles had to become Jews (cirmucised and observe all the ways of the Jews) before they could be accepted, Paul let them know that that wasn't the message of Jesus, as in discrimintaion is not allowed, as in come as you are and you are loved, as in Christ sat with the sinners and not those who were supposed to be righteous. Get it now!!

Hang on whatever you will. At least as a friendly brother to you in the human race, you heard the truth from me.

A truth that you have not proven to me.

Let's make the assumption that I am an unbeliever in Christ and muhaaamad. I don't believe in the Bible, Torah or the Qu'ran, am just a regular gal and we've been having these discussions.
Let's just assume that,even though you haven't, you have proven the Bible to be false, how does that prove the Qu'ran to be true?
Just because the Bible isn't true does not make the Qu'ran true. In fact it only makes me even more sceptical of the Qu'ran. Why? Because the Qu'ran includes in it some general concensus with the Bible and if that isn't true, then that makes the Qu'ran not true. Also, the fact that the Qu'ran tells that I should learn from the people that don't hold the truth, makes the Qu'ran not true. Also, the fact the the Qu'ran struggles to prove its authenticity by citing sources in the Bible makes it suspicious. So you see dear, you still haven't proven the truth to me and you won't. Why? Because you base your sole existence on the Bible and Torah.

I wonder if the Angels, as a group of being are not more superior in speech and get direct information from God than an apostle, Paul?

One more time, Pual did not write the Gospels.
The fact that you keep attacking Paul and no other writer makes this suspicious. Is Paul troubling you (and I mean all muslims) in your sleep? Because you guys cannot get your hands off of Paul. You always attack him. Hmm there must be some truth to Paul then eh?

Read Surah Najm. Read about the Night Journey to heavens (Isra wa Miraj).

You know I the Harry potter books, it tells of how he flies with his broomstick in the air, dear does that make it true?

I thought it will help you to realise that we are not dealling with the Barnabas bit.

I already moved past the Barnanas issue.

The New Testament of the Bible consists of four Gospels ( reports about the life and teachings of Jesus) the acts of the Apostles (being the history of the early Christians), and Epistles of Paul etc.
In his Epistle to the Colossians (Chapter 4, Verse 10) Paul describes Barnabas thus: " . . . Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments; if he comes unto you, receive him." Here Paul refers to commandments of Jesus.

Among other references in Paul's Epistles is the following in the Epistle to the Galatians:

"And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision." (Chapter 2. Verse 9).

In the Acts of the Apostles, Barnabas is mentioned as follows:

"And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, which is, being interpreted, (The son of consolation), a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus." (Acts 4:36).

Paul was a Jew who was persecuting the Christians. He is said to have seen Jesus in a vision and to have become a convert to the creed of Jesus. Among the disciples of Jesus, Barnabas was a dynamic evangelist. Paul also became a preacher, with the difference that Paul began to over-praise and deify Jesus. "And straightaway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the son of God." (Acts 9: 20).

ACTS 9:26 and 27: "And when Saul ( Paul ) was come to Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple. "But Barnabas took him and, brought him to the Apostles.

ACTS 11:22-30: "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem; and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

"Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
"For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
"And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

"Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea.

"Which also they did and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."

Sweetheart we already know that Barnabas was in the Bible no need to prove it to us. WHat we're saying is that what he actually wrote is not what your're posting. If you want I can post his writing and oh yeah the actual date of the writing. You will see the difference in the writing of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas.

It's amazing how Barnanbas was filled with the Holy Ghost and yet the Holy Ghost isn't real, right? But hey the Bible is corrupt, yet you're trying to prove the relevance of Barnabas with the Bible. This is truly desperation at its best.

oh um you missed this part in Acts 9:27 where Barnabas confirmed that Saul was preaching fearlessly in the name of Jesus
"But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus"

If you're going to quote, please by all means quote the full story not half of it. Quote the truth, please thanks. Don't twist the Bible. Thank you.

"2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off."

So the Holy Spirit isn't real but was real enough for Barnabas to obey it, but hey the Bible is corrupted, yet you're trying to prove Barnabas in the Bible.

It's amazing how a man who was all cozied up with the Paul depicted him as evil. He preached with Paul whom he called evil. H epreched the same evil message with Paul. Amzing isn't it?

Yes the Council of Nicaea a consensus among all the priests to come into one common believe. I think the meaning of the word Creed is to “Believe” or article of faith”. Not a prayer as you define.

They already had one belief. If you want to know what truly happened at the council please do some extensive research on it. I will try to help you find a reliable source that will truly clarify everything for you. It had been three centuries after the death of Christ, certainly their belief did not start then. In order for them to even come together certainly they already had a belief.

if that is the truth the gospel had been  written “about 35-40” years after Christ, then who is the Author of that. Can we point our finger to the name itself as the author and writer of that books.

Yes, God. Those who penned it down were the disciples of Christ and they wrote exactly what they saw and what they were told by Christ to tell the world. They penned these things down when they saw that the disciples were being killed one by one. The Holy Spirit prompted them to write down these things so that it won't be passed away or watered down as time went on. These were accepted as Gospels because they are disciples of Christ. The other writings were not accepted because they were not directly linked to Christ. Honestly people wrote down things that were not in accordance with the teachings of Christ and it was obvious. The very essence of the message that Christ taught us was conveyed in these Gospels. Nothing to be added nothing to be subtracted.

The bible is a blend of ancient Middle Eastern history, Jewish law, and mythology-- mythology both traditionary among the Jews but also borrowed from neighboring nations such as Babylon and Assyria. An important question arises: do the historical parts of the bible offer proof that supports the miraculous parts?

Prove this. How about you take it up with the history of the Jewish people. I'm pretty sure they would not fancy you mixing up their history.
The books of the Bible were written overtime by the prophets of God. Eyewitnesses.

Yes the historical parts offer proof of it. Especially of Jesus' death, resurrection and spread of his ministry. The tomb he was buried in, the hill he was nailed to the cross, the place of his birth, everything lines up together. You're trying to prove the Bible false why don't you prove the Qu'ran true. Tell us the historical facts of the Qu'ran. Certainly proving the Bible false does not prove the Qu'ran to be true. So why do you hold on to the belief in the Qu'ran?

Those who claim that the bible offers moral and spiritual teachings will be shown that not only is that statement unsupportable, but that the exact opposite can be demonstrated

Demonstrate it!!!

How can we know that the bible is true? As far as the New Testament None of the contemporary Jewish or Roman historians, living during the time in which Jesus said to have lived, wrote one word about him.

Show us!!!

Modern biblical scholars agree that the New Testament scriptures were written 35 to 40 (as lady said)  years after the alleged events, and the names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were attached afterward by the Church. The clergy do not mention this fact, and would have their flocks go right on believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the men whose names they bear. But this is not the truth.

How about you get it in your head that the Church itself was started by Christ and that these disciples make up the priests of the church, they wrote it down and therefore passed it on. It wasn't attached afterwards my dear, they let us know that they penned it down. Most especially John at the end of his book. He let us know who was writing it.
How about you get to know that these men also had disciples who knew that they wrote these books. How about you get to know that the history of writings in the Church is well kept and the authors are well known because it is passed down in history without a gap in it. Why don't you do some reading on what the contents of the gospels are. Find out what tey talk about and compare it to the writings of ignatius of anitoch
Well since you know the truth, why don't you share it with us?

"The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree." (what do you think Lady priest)

Stating that the four gospels do not agree, will not make them disagree. SO BANG YOUR HEAD ON THE WALL AND SCREAM IF YOU WANT TO, THEY WILL ALWAYS AGREE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DO Those who have read them know this.

•"It must be true because everybody just knows it's true. How can the whole world be wrong?"
•"The Bible is true because it is the word of God."
•"It's true because it is the most perfect moral guide ever produced. Nothing written by humans approaches its perfection."
•"Its writings span 1,500 years, and there are no errors, contradictions or difficulties. No book written by mere humans could be so flawless."
The Christian uses these assertions instead of facts-- belief in place of evidence

No because history has proven it so. Not just Jewish history or Christian history, but Roman history, Egyptian history and more. So no matter how much or how long you deny it. It is still the truth.

No one can tell, except that we tell each other so. Priests and ministers, who make their living selling salvation, tell us so.

1. Priests don't make a living
2. History already told

But why should we believe them? What authority do their words carry, other than the authority that they give themselves? Strip away the claim that the bible is the "word of God", and who in their right mind would still believe it?

Why should we believe Muhaamad and the Imams, by what authority do their words carry, other than the authority that they give themselves? Strip away the claim that the Qu'ran is the "word of God", and who in their right mind would still believe it?

But let's see about the Bible and who in their right mind would believe it even if it's not called the word of God. Oh yes that's right the Jews and the others whom they came in contact with, who were named in the Bible. The destruction of the temple as Christ predicted, the destruction of the temple as Jeremiah predicted. Dude your palying with history of nations (I'll have to come back and list them for you) the Bible doesn't just contain the history of the Jews but the history of others too. Those who came in contact with the Jews have these events in their history also, so are you going to claim that they too have corrupted their history? Everything about the Qu'ran is based on the the events that took place in the Bible which includes the Torah and the New Testament. Don't for one minute think that the Bible was written only after the death of Christ. It was written by Moses and the other Prophets themselves. They had prophecies which came true.

Basically, the Christian believe the bible is true because they parents told them, and then they told not to question them.

Stop taking what is applied to Muuslims and apply it to Christians. Christians are encouraged to question the Bible and they do so everyday. That is the reason why you always hear so many people raising questions about the Bible, I know it is very intriguing. I became a Catholic a year and 2 months ago. I had to attend religious classes for one year. I was told to study the Bible and come with questions. Trust me I came with hard questions, just like I'm doing now with Olabowale and I received answers, not just answers that I wanted to accept but answers that put an end to my questions. I came up with as much as I wanted, the Priest was shocked but also very happy that I cared enough about my beliefs to make sure that I am taking the right step. So many people go through that class each year and they are told what things are and why things are done and why they're done a certain way. So trust me Christians are very much told to question their faith.
I know several muuslims who cannot question their faith because they're "cautioned" that the Qu'ran is 100% the word of God and out of fear of God wouldn't even dare question it, oh and also out of fear of dying, they don't want to die or be ridiculed or disowned so they do not question.

In the west, you are told the Christian bible is true

My dear Nigeria is not in the West and neither is China or India where Christianity is slowly rising. These people have seen the work of the true God and are coming to believe. They feel his love for them and understand him more.

In the middle east, the New Testament is held to be false, and the Jews endorse only the Old Testament

Would this be because the middle east consits of muuslim nations and that the Jews don't even acknowledge Christ as the Christ? duh?

If you are Is,lamic, the K’oran is the only true bible

Why would you call the Qu'ran the only true Bible, do you know what Bible means?

Other religions have their own sacred writings. Which book you believe depends predominantly on where you were born

I would like to differ. I have friends who were born and raised in the north of Nigeria, and they are strong and devout Catholics. I have an uncle who converted from Islam to Christianity and he is a strong and devout Catholics. I know several Priests who are in the Arab nations today and they ofcourse are strong and devout Catholics. I also know an author who is a Priest today anda actually wrote a book about Islam (I am currently reading it) who was a strong and devout muuslim. He was a muuslim from birth and till today still lives in the middle east but now a Catholic priest.

You believe what your parents tell you, just like they believe what their parents told them, and so on, since the book was written. For the most part, you are either a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Great One, Hindu or Buhddist because your parents were.

Well then maybe I should let you know that I am an exception to the rule and so is my uncle. My mother's parents are Catholic, my mother is a Protestant (she was secular before she became one, even though her parents are Catholic), I am a Catholic. My uncle's family are all muuuslims, he is a Catholic Christian. SO you see my dear it is not what your parents tell you, it is what you hold to be the truth.
It would be naive of me to say that it's the muuslims that hold on to the belief that their parents taught them( although the percentage is much higher with muuuslims) but I do know that there are some Christians who converted to Is'lam. So please dear stop being naive and wrong in your claims.

You were brought up to believe it. Under the same circumstances, you would have believed anything. Centuries ago, to disagree with the Bible was to face punishment, shame, torture and even death

Even in this day and age it is taboo to question the Qu'ran or the prophet. You are to face punishment, shame, torture, and yes even death. An innocent teacher was killed because she threw the Qu'ran (unknowingly) into the trah can. No one will kill you if you throw the Bible in the trash can.

Maybe you don't know history but the Christians were the ones persecuted for having their beliefs, and even by your muuuslims. That is why the crusades happened, the muuuslims went about killing Christians and intimidating them (choose Islam or death).

Trust me I know that Christianity has not been perfect, but I can assure you that we have been pushed. It's either we fought back or Christianity was going to be wiped off the face of the earth by muuslims. Thank God we fought back so that the truth cannot be hidden. No wonder Isl'am is always trying to ridicule us and trying to find faults in us. That is the only way that you can prove the Qu'ran to be true. Truth should definitely learn to stand on its own.

Given these conditions, it is no wonder that nobody questioned it for two thousand years. It is obvious why Christianity had such a stranglehold on the minds of the population. To disagree was to be executed.

Once again stop taking the beliefs of Isl'am and applying it to Christians.
Maybe you haven't heard of Martin Luther, the greatest rebel in Christianity, newsflash, he wasn't killed, and because of him today you have the protestants. I wonder if Is'lam had a Martin Luther, he would survive. For some reason I think not, if a woman did not survive innocently putting the Qu'ran in the trash, a rebel won't survive.

As far as "inspiration" goes, how can anyone establish the truth of this claim? What does it mean to be "inspired"? Most theologians would say that it meant that god used men as instruments, making them write his thoughts. How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired, and not insane? He couldn't possibly know for sure.

I am really loving your questions. How did Muhaamad know that it was an angel that was speaking to him? How did he even know that God existed? Why did he not think that he was running mad and was having nightmares?

How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God? How could we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been too, and so should be the men who tell us what the bible means.

Good now apply these same questions to the Qu'ran.

1 The Bible has prophecies that came true, that is how people came to believe
2 The Bible has incidents of when men asked God to prove himself, he did, people came to believe
3 The Bible has events that took place in history, Jews, Egyptians, Romans, and more, the history of these nations tell the same story of the same events, people came to believe.

Lady if I fall short its doesn’t mean you defeated me…if I fall short it doesn’t mean you change my faith…as far I’m here I will respond to you as long I can figure it out. If not I just leave it for you to clarify the issued.

I am not looking to defeat you, I am not looking to change your belief, I was just letting you know that the history of the Church is well documented and your calims will be proven false.

The good thing about knowing the truth is you're able to filter from your head what is right from wrong. The Gospel of barnabas may have said otherwise for the following reasons:
1. Jesus himself thought a man greater than him will come thus named him that
2. The Messiah (Jesus) may have refused the title because of the elders of the man who hated him extremely because of his truthtelling
3. Barnabas the writer may have avoided calling Jesus that for the fear of people worshipping Jesus as God.

1. Jesus said there is none greater
2. He NEVER refused the title, that is why your Qu'ran acknowledges him as the messiah
3. Barnabas was not a disciple of Christ, so the gospel that he wrote was in accordance to him witnessing

There are four Gospels that have a central theme, that cite the same events, gospel of Barnabas sticks out like a sore thumb. It is the only one that goes against all the writings of that time. The only claim that it can make is that the other Gospels are corrupt (hmm sounds familiar). It is the only gospel that doesn't know the geography of that era. There's so much contradictions with history and the gospel and I am ashamed from muuslims everywhere that you would even consider the content of this fable to be true. It only goes to show the desperation you have to prove Christianity false and yet again fail.

Note this is just an assumption, I was not there when the writer was writing, neither have I said all in the Scripture is right because its only God that is perfect

I am glad you stated it as just an assumption.

Only if the eyewitnesses are truthful in their recounting the stories to the hearers, who must also be truthful, so as not to add or change anything to or from the stories. We do not have that in the Bible.

How do you know it's not in the Bible? Are you an eyewitness too? Can you refute what they saw because you were there? I would rather take an eyewtiness account over someone who received a revelation on the issue. Seeing that we're using logic here, is it logical to believe an eyewitness or someone who claimed to have received divine revelation and his only way to prove his revelation is by labelling the eyewitness as a liar?

Since the New Testament is what we are writing about here, we see a lot of gimmick going on. We see a lot of fallacy and we see alot of jumping into conclusions without any logic.

We're discussing the Bible as a whole not just the New Testament. To understand the New Testament you must be knowledgeaable about the Old Testament.
Logica according to whom? The fact that you use human logic to understand God shows your limitations.

Lets take the lower number of years to present an argument here. This was just the number of years that I left high school. I can not even remember all my high school buddies' names. The street i used to pass through for all those 5 years, I can not remember them. Was Jesus ministry not a mere 3 years? Is the number of years i spent in high school not more than 3, whereof, I could not accurately remember the exactly all the events that happened in my life.

Once again I will need for you to use better examples.

When you leave high school do you continuously relive the moments or do you move on to other moments. The message in the New Testament had sustained for years. Everyday the apostles live the message and preach the message, they continue to tell the message everyday of their lives, it is not something that can be forgotten so easily, not when there is a constant reminder.

You also forget that it was not just one eyewitness but hundreds of eyewitnesses and they all professed the same thing.

Even a shorter time period will dull the memory! Ten years ago I left a city that I loved very much, and my ability to describe the city is not as good as my first year that I left the place. You must know that the longer the passes on an event, and without putting the details down, when it was just happening, the more it fades into the memory and becomes a thing forgotten. This is the case with your Bible. one liner will not do. And you can not just defend the indefensable with just trust me. It will not wash.

Sorry it is not the case with the Bible. These apostles didn't just witness something and then disappear into thin air and then resurface again to write the events. They continually told the event the exact same way every single time. It stayed in their memory.

I am still a student and I learned algebra when I was in school in Nigeria, I left Nigeria over 10 years ago. I am still very good in algebra because till today I continually apply it to my studies in accounting, so I know I won't forget it.
Or better yet, I learned how to cook egusi soup when I was home in Nigeria, but I haven't fogotten how to prepare it because I cook it at least once every two weeks. I am constantly on it.
This is the case of the disciples. They didn't disappear and then reappear 30 years later to write their respective books. The Church didn't begin when they wrote their books, no, it began way before and it continued on with the same words that were used in the Bible to teach the Christians the message from God. They wrote it when they saw that all the disciples were beginning to die off and they didn't want the message to be watered down. That is why the message is still authentic today even with the translations, it still contains the same message.

How do you know that the Author was God? Is there a verse in the bible that testifies to this?

Yes. There are countless verses that let you know that what came out of the mouth of the disciples and apostles and prophets is the Word of God. Seriosuly man, you claim to know the Bible, yet you do not know this?

What do you expect, that God would come and say write these down?
That's not even how it is in the Qu'ran. God wasn't speaking the angel gabriel was.

God spoke through people like he has always done.

There are many verses in the AlQur'an that let us know that God is the Speaker. He Himself states it

Angel Gabriel stated it. If you would hang on to the belief that God spoke through Angel Gabriel, why can't I hang on to the belief that God spoke in the Bible through the Prophets and the disciples?
Unless you can prove to me that God himself opened his mouth and spoke directly to Muhaaamad, I won't take the words of the qu'ran to be true. If you want me to hold it to be true then you have to hold the words of the Bible to be true also. In the Bible you will see God speaking through his angels, not just Gabriel and also through his prophets, and then later on through his disciples. In the Bible you get the full view of it, not just a summarised story. Nothing hidden. You get the full story.

Please stop trying to come up with a conclusion that has no logical process of observation. Am asking you to stat a separate thread for our discussion about the AlQur'an. I hope you will do it.

Why can't we just continue with this one sheesh? We've been talking about the Qu'ran the whole time.

Lol, Saint ofcourse

Yet he is still the most corrupt person in the world, even in the grave.

if its not in the NICENE CREED 325 AD there is no Gospel exist that you called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how come you said it is the Truth? wherein you do not even know the author of the So called Gospel

Ok so you know I like to answer every question. I like educating people on the matter.

So this is what I can get from what you're saying.

1. The Gospels did not exist until the Nicene Creed,

Wait do you mean the council of Nicea, because the creed is a prayer

2. Before the council the gospels matthew, mark, luke,and john did not exist

They did, they were written about 35-40 years after the death of Christ. They weren't written in 325 AD. They were compiled into a book to make it easier and official, but they weren't written then. History has proven this.

3. We do not know the author of the gospel

We do know the author to be God, we do know the writers to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The writers let us know that it is them and history of the Church lets us know too. There were those that were surrounding them at that time and they knew about the writings and used the writings even before 325 AD.


My dear do not come up against the history of the Church, you will fall short. Eye witnesses dear, are more reliable.

This is how we know it is true.

I hope this addresses your issue

BTW what does it mean to be "poor in spirit"?

humble, not pompus, not prideful, not judgmental, not thinking that you are better than certain ppl, not buying into the social class (hierarchy).

Basically it describes what poor ppl in the physical are only it is to be applied to the spirit. It doesn't mean monetary o.

Burning Bush". I hope you know that Moses was a prophet? Just imagine if there was a group of people who believed, in whatever they believed in, and Moses came with something different from their belief. Wouldn't these people, who thought that they are on the "truth," which Moses is now saying that they are wrong have the same exact opinion as the Christians have of M.uhammad and the Mu.slims?}

You forget that it is how Christianity spread. There were those who held other beliefs that they thought were true, but with proof they came to believe. You still have only proved Christianity to be true to me.

I already told you that I won't believe anything that is said in the Qu'ran until you can prove that it is God directly that is speaking.

You went from God was speaking to God speaking through Angel Gabriel, if this is the claim that you hold, you cannot dismiss the writings of the Torah or the Bible. It's funny how you mention inspiration from God. Meanwhile when we tell you that the writings are inspiration from God you dismiss it. SO now you admit that God actually inspires people to write.

A word of caution; I repeat again that all the contents of the AlQur'an, the 114 Surahs, everything, is from God. Which means anything spoken by anyone, eg, the dialogue between Moses (as) with Pharaoh (Lanatullah), was inspired by God. And it is God who reiterated it to Prophet Mu.hammad (as), was not there, in form of a story

I thought you won't believe in the writings that are inspirations from God

By the way if you want to caution me to believe that it is from God, you must first prove that it is from God. Showing that the writings that came before it were corrupted does not prove it to be true. Show the authenticity before I can even try to believe anything from the book.

Showing me the writings of the book and explanation of it, proves nothing to me. I have a literature book and I can explain the story but that doesn't mean that the book is historically or remotely close to historically correct

@~Lady~: Please note that my effort to proof the authenticity of AlQur'an, being 100% words of God, and, 0% word of anyone else, including Mu.hammad, and or Angel Gabreil, is a very rigorous task. It simply means that I should try to analyse every verse of the AlQur'an to you, confirming that no one chapter, verse, word or letter is from anyone. This is exactly what I am doing

I thought that the Angel Gabriel was telling the story and God was speaking through the Angel. Now the words don't come from the angel?

Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you

How did Khadijah know about All'ah when All'ah was not known at that time? This was the beginning, certainly he hadn't told Khadijah about All'ah yet until after she was done consoling him.
Won't this then mean that there was an entity called All'ah before the revelations came?

Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic.

I thought muhaaamad didn't know Christians and that all this was new to him? If he knew Christians doesn't it mean that he must have heard the scriptures and didn't understand them? Therefore leading to his own path of understanding, Isl'am.

(I fear that something may happen to me.) Khadijah replied, "Never! By All.ah, Alla.h will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your relatives, you speak the truth, you help the poor and the destitute, you serve your guests generously, and you help the deserving, calamity afflicted people.'' Khadijah then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Nawfal bin Asad bin `Abdul-`Uzza bin Qusay, who, during the period of ignorance became a Christian and used to scribe the Scriptures in Arabic. He would write from the Injil in Hebrew as much as All.ah willed for him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadijah said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.'' Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen'' All.ah's Messenger described what he saw. Waraqah said, "This is An-Namus whom Al.lah had sent to Musa. I wish I was young and could live until the time when your people would drive you out.'' A.llah's Messenger asked,

This is all in the Qu'ran? I thought only God spoke in the Qu'ran?

The Christian man, Waraqah was able to identify that  this man, has been chosen as a Prophet/Messenger. He was able to predict the future reactions of his people about him; the same that major prophets/Messengers suffered before him. Weren't Jesus, Moses to name a few and even their father Abraham belied and berated, etc, in a way that you know that their community did not not like their effects on the statusquo of their times?}

How could he have already been rejected by his people before he even started speaking to them? How could he have suffered if his messengership had not even been announced?

The cousin was not a Christian. He would have dismissed any possibility of Muhaaamad being a prophet. If he was a Christian, he would know that there would be none after Christ.
I know he wasn't using another Bible. The existing Bible is the only one to have come. In the Bible Christ warned against false prophets and let us know that there won't be any other person who would lead them to God other than himself. (Don't give me the crap that the Bible is corrupted, it is the same Bible that the cousin must have read, how come he didn't mention what the Bible said?)

Ok you can continue.

if its not in the NICENE CREED 325 AD there is no Gospel exist that you called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, how come you said it is the Truth? wherein you do not even know the author of the So called Gospel

huh?

clarify your statement please

The useless thief was erased from my memory.

This just added more stress to my day, now that I remember him. hissssss

i am very confused so far and i have never got a Good clarification about this matter.  the Book of Genesis Saying, in the very beginning (we Do not Know When and How this happened), God Created  a  Man and a Woman  after  Divine law violation,  God  cursed them   and after that cursing, they  Got two Children
the Firstborn Cain and the second Abel when Cain Killed Abel God Cursed him and he took him from their parents and sent him away wondering up and Down the world  with a signal on his face as  his defender,  but where he went, he  Found a Nation and this nation is not Adam  descendent  because when Abel was Killed, they Had not Had another son yet   the bible said, from that Nation Cain Took  a Wife and beggot  Enoch and when Enoch Was Born,
Adam and Eve now Beggot  SETH  third Son  (CAIN,ABEL,SETH  Son Of ADAM). (Enoch Is older than SETH) my Question is,  If the Nation where Cain took a wife  isn Not ADAM's Descendent Where Did this nation Come from  ?

1. Just because other children were not named does not mean that they didn't exist
2. The Bible does not say that Cain took a wife from a nation, the only thing it says is that he had relations with his wife. His wife could very much had been from Adam's descendant. Keep in mind they were talking about sons and not daughters.
3. When Cain was banished he could have taken his wife with him, don't you think?
4. Seth was another son to replace Abel, so let the breeding begin again.

So to answer you question. The Bible did not say that Cain's wife was a descendant from another nation.

@Poster: Bible as a Book/Holy Book/Book of Guidance, is full of confusions and contradictions. Anyone who study it, without the usual snapshot in time (not relating portions which are treating same subjects, in order to draw the proper conslusion/inference), you will arrive at more questions that clarity of ideas.

ACTUALLY Know what's in the Bible before you start making claims. Thank you.

If you are then saying that the New testament is truth 100% because it is dubbed "gospel," then the Old testament (Taurah and Psalm) would not be truth, either, since it is not called "gospel!"

No it doesn't. I have an accounting book and it's not called "Gospel" of accounting, does that mean that it does not hold the truth about accounting?
The Qu'ran is not called gospel either so would that mean that it doesn't hold the truth?

If you will call a book or anything gospel then it should be the truth, but just because you don't call anything gospel does not mean that it is not the truth.

But you have it in your Bible, that is the Old testament, which completely disagrees with your "gospel/new testament" in many ways

The Old Testament does not disagree with the New Testament, it foretells it. The Old Testament actually supports the New Testament. The Old Testament comprises the history of God's goodness and wrath, while prophecying of a New Covenant that will be made to all people. God choose a particular people to use to show and prove his power to the rest of the world so that they may come to believe that God truly is all powerful and magnificent and the one true God. After showing these to the people God gives a new Covenant (New Testament) but this time around he opens it to the rest of the world. The rest of the world can see how God was merciful to the people he chose to use to show himself and they can also see how his wrath can be detrimental. But now the rest of the world know that he is the one true God and are eager to worship him and love him and at the same time stay true to his commandments and never distance themselves from him. God in return loves them and protects them and leads them to paradise with him.

The Old Testament was not written in a day ar in a particular age. They have centuries between them and it is made up of books written by those who were inspired by God at different times. Putting thses books together, it is actually amazing how none of it negates the other. How at different times the same prophecy was spoken of, it is amazing how consistent they were even though they had centuries between them.

Let me put it like this. When there's a new drug coming out, let's say for weight loss, the pharmaceutical companies test the drug on certain people who are willing and when the drug is tested to be true and proven to work, the drug is put on the shelf for the rest of the world to use. Now ofcourse God is not to be used, but I just wanted to give you a similar scenario.


You want me to believe a book that negates consistency. A book that is inconsistent with the other books and its only claim to fame is that the other books are corrupted. You like using human logic a lot so let's use it here. You actually expect me to believe a book that is inconsistent with the other books and its only claim to fame is that the other books are corrupted? Does that seem logical to you. You want me to believe a book that cannot stand on its own as truth and the only way it can is to cast doubt on the previous books. You want me to follow a prophet that is inconsistent with the other prophets both in his writings and his actions. Yet he lays claim that he is like the other prophets, but in fact he is nothing like them. I am sorry, but I won't follow him and won't believe in his lies.

Sorry but God is not an author of confusion.

I will now ask you, here and now; Is the Bible a complete truth then? Is Moses and David books when they disagree with Paul and acts of apostles part of the Bible, the post Jesus part of the "gospel" can be agreed upon as false or what?

Well I addressed this above and I will say it again, Moses and David books and other prophets books do not nullify or disagree with the New Testament books but foretell of the New Testament and supports it.

I'm sure you've been taught that all your life and certain verses were shown to prove their point, but I can assure you, that they are wrong. I know they are wrong because I am not in a position of desperation to prove anything to you and because I know what the Bible contains. I am also not in a position to pick and choose. I won't look at a verse without looking at those before and after it to see the context in which it is used. I also won't pick and choose without understanding the history of the Bible and how it came to be. They however, did not take their time to study the Bible and see the connections in the Old and New Testaments. So trust me they have no idea, don't go shopping for puppies in the supermarket. When I wanted to learn about The Great Religion I came to you and did not listen to the Priests or Pastors about it. I came directly to the people who "live" The Great Religion and study it. Please don't go to the people who do not "live' Christian and study it. They will only look at it from a one sided view.

They will tell you that Muhaamad was foretold in the Old Testament and the New Testament as the comforter, but when you see the Old and New Testament it tells of a Spirit as the comforter, you see that Muhaaamad isn't a Spirit, so they say that the Bible and Torah are corrupted so yoou won't pay attention to the books but to what they say.
It is very unfortunate that that lie has been passed down from generation to generation. A young girl said to me why are Christians and Muuslims fighting, don't the Christians know that Muhaamad was in the Bible. I asked her is Muhaaamad the comforter that was told of in the Bible she said yes. I asked her is Muhaaamad a Spirit she said no, then I said how can Muhaamad be the comforter that is spoken of in the Bible then if he wasn't a Spirit because the comforter spoken of in the Bible is a Spirit, she was dumbfounded. The only way that the Qu'ran and Musslim beliefs can be proven is if the Bible and Torah are looked at as corrupt. If not, the Qu'ran holds no base. So I ask you why is it that the Bible and Torah have to be looked at as corrupt, why can't the Qu'ran just stand on its own without shedding a negative light on anything? Clearly God can stand on his own without shedding a negative light.

And just because the Qu.r'an is not called "gospel,"  an English word does not mean truth can not be called other than being called "gospel."

You do realise that you just negated your above statement about the Old Testament. How can you apply this concept to the Qu'ran and not to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is known by Torah, Pentateuch, Prophetic books and more.

I do not think from what Frizy is saying about the Barnabas gospel, he has taken it as 100% truth. No Mu.sli.m believes it like that. Just like no Mu.sl.im will say that there is no single truth in the Bible. What Frizy said as i read his opinion is that he believes that Barnabas gospel is 1000% is truer than the canonical gospels. Either was, the truth 100% is AlQur'an Karim.

That is why I say he does not know the meaning of Gospel. The cannonical Gospel holds the truth and that's why they are called Gospel (Truth). It is not a percentage of truth, but total and absolute truth. There is no half truth. If it is half truth, then it is a lie.

Stop making excuses and falling short. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the truth, no ifs and/or buts about it.


Prove the Qu'ran to me without trying to prove the Bible or Torah as c orrupted. I bet you $100 you can't.

I dare any Mountain of fire member to disprove me. I'll check if they have a website.

Thanks I am waiting

Except mine is more of a sign of love and endearment. I am not doing it to make you have an intermediary between you and God

If you know anything about Christianity you will know that Love is the greatest virtue of all. It is because of God's love that he sacrificed himself for us. It is because of his love that he forgives of even of habitual sins.

So trust me, it is because of love for God and humans that these Christians speak to people.

Don't come here to say that you know what is in the minds of these Christians because you don't. It is because of love for God and my neighbours that I even entertain your thoughts. I am not to judge you but to love you and that is why I am friends with you. I am a Christian. I don't even have it in mind to convert you, I will let God do that himself. He always reveals himself to those who are willing.

If the muuslims have love they would not be so quick to want to murder their family members who choose to leave Is'lam. That is not love, that is pure competition and control. That takes away a person's free will. If a Christian converts to Is'lam no one tries to take their life, they are loved anyway, and are committed to the hands of God.

You know love when it is shown, and murder is not love, honour killings is not love, taking away a person's chance to make a choice for themselves is not love. Putting fear in a person's heart if they remotely think of converting to anything is not love. Love is unconditional. There is no "I will love you, if" it is "I will love you no matter what"

In Is'lam there is "I will love you, if" I know because I have a good amount of muuuslim friends who won't even let me mention the name of Jesus as the Son of God. But I love them anyway. I have lost strong friendships because of their fear of me and my faith, now we only speak every now and then and I must not discuss anything to do with faith.


Olabowale, you would not be having a conversation with me, if you do not have it in your mind to convert me. It is not love when you have an interest at stake. I speak to you just because you are who you are, without any motives. That is love.

I will also benefit from it.

You do not have any bit of love for me, but your own interest and benefit.

I have nothing to benefit from you, but will still accept you anyway.

Hello people

How's life faring well?

Pam thanks for the Readings

May God be your guide as you walk in his footsteps Amen

love you all

I swear it. I was totally shocked. And the poor mofo with whom I saw it with was seriously defending it.

Wow, I would have loved to hear his defence of it. Do you know where I can get more info on this please?


I am so glad the priests at Catholic churches are answerable to someone. I for one know find it easy to talk to my priest when I feel he's done something unpleasant. I also like that he is humble enough to accept his mistake and apologise and repent of it.

Accountability is needed

People hold your pastors and priests accountable. They are to be upright men of God. Don't become yes men or women. Don't let the sanctuary be tainted.

Men the bottomline is this

Women too are tempted by sight. Why do you think we find some celebrity men attractive?

I was speaking to my friend last night, and I told him just how good looking Anderson Cooper is ( AC 360 on CNN), and he laughed. He realy thought women only get tempted when touched.

Look we have eyes too, so COVER UP. Thanks.

I agree with you all that being poor has nothing to do with religion, however you need to understand that majority of Nigerians are Christians, and the basis of my posting is on the fact that Christians are covenant carriers, the blessings of God rests upon us, so there is no reason for poverty. even the will of God is that we prosper. so why the poor state of praying Christians.

Blessed are the poor in Spirit for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven

Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted

Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth

Blessed are they who hunger and thirse for justice, for they shall be satisfied

Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy

Blessed are the clean of heart for they shall see God

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven

Blessed are you when men reproach you and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.

What do you conclude from it?

It is not what is of the worl (carnal) but what is of the Spirit.
Set your heart on the Kingdom of heaven and you will be blessed.

If you are a true follower of God, then you should concern yourself with things that will make you grow spiritually, and not carnally

EXACTLY!!! Thank you

Have these Christians overstepped their boundary or are they simply following the command of God in Matt 28:19

If they have overstepped their boundary so has Olabowale in trying to convert me and he needs to be fined too then, right? Olabowale and I reside in the USA, a largely Christian country, so what's your answer.

FFS I saw an advert today by Mountain of Fire and miracle asking for the donation of 35,000,000,000 (thirty-five billion Naira), for an auditoruim. WTF for??

WHAT?
WHY?

Aren't there enough buildings in the world?

Please tell me you just made this up.

~Lady~: I thought I answered the question that nagged you so terribly, about Messiah. The Messiah for Children of israel/Jews/Israelites was Jesus. The prophet to the world did not have to be titled, Messiah, does he? The prophet/Messenger to the whole world in one single shot was M.uhammad. I hope you can now rest easy.

The Qu'ran does not state that Muhaaamad is the messiah, it states that Jesus is the messiah.
In this gospel, Jesus said he is not the messiah and when asked who the messiah is, he said Muhaaamad.
If Jesus was sent to the house of Isreal, he would have easily stated that he is the messiah of the Isrealites but Muhaaamad is the messiah of the muuslims. He did not state that. In him stating that he is not the messiah, removes him from any consideration of messiahood, the Qu'ran states that he is the messiah or a messiah, depending on how you look at it.

So is Jesus the messiah or is Muhaaamad the messiah?

I really do want Frizy to respond he believes in this gospel since he is posting it. He said that just because it is a gospel doesn't mean it necessarily holds all truth, but what he fails to realise is that the term gospel means truth. SO ULTIMATELY the question is does he believe in the truth or does he believe in the Qu'ran?

So once again your response doesn't answer my question.

When you are talking about a church that used to have to endorse every politician who wanted to be in office in Europe and elsewhere. The Catholic Church, The mother Church of us all.

You have got to be kidding me. Do you know history at all?

I wish you could be so bold to be very clear on what your Revelation verses are insinuating

Last I checked it was all the sprouting churches in Nigeria that are giving revelations on whom the annointed one in Nigeria is and it is not from the Catholic church.



@Topic.

I want to say yes. But understanding the day and age in which we live in, finance is an important factor and so is corruption. In order for some of these churches to be transparent they do have to appoint someone with credible background (preferrably an accountant). Audits also have to be done because as we know no one is to be trusted not even accountants. That is why an auditor without interest in the church and one whom the accountant does not recommend is to audit the financial statements of the church.
Nowadays the pastor is viewed as having the church only for his personal gain, if indeed he is not he should allow the auditor in to be able to attest that the monies spent are being spent appropriately and there is no evidence of fraud or corruption.
Honestly in today's age, it is in the best interest of the church to keep account of everything. People are too quick to judge and point finger, mostly routing from jealousy.
In order to lift themselves up, they see it fit to rip their brother apart.