₦airaland Forum

How many times will I explain to you guys that the Gospel of Barnabas' minute differences from the Ko'ran has nothing to with your belief in what God is.
The Ko'ran is perfect and the Gospel may not be 100% accurate but is 1000% truer than what the fabricated Pauline bible says. The Ko'ran further explains that the doctors of law and rabbis changed the word told (to)them for another saying.
So All'ah cursed them and promise them the penalty of burning except those who repent and make known the truth before dying- which Paul for example did not!

Yes it does. You cannot hold something to be true if it contradicts your own belief.
So the question is, do you believe that Muhaaamad is the messiah or that Jesus is the messiah? Do you believe that Mary gave birth without pains, or with pains?

Answer those questions please. DOn't give me the sorry excuse that you just gave.
Just so you know the meaning of Gospel before you use it to shoot yourself in the foot again:

Gospel means truth, so which is it? The truth or the Qu'ran?

way to go lady
i think olabowale 'the jesus basher' has finally met his match, though i still do not suscribe to the tearing down of each other's faiths
i wish you guys spent more time talking about what your religion has to offer (if it really does) and less time arguing
then you may actually win someone to your side, the substance of faiths lies in what comfot and peace it has to offer to mortals else, they are just carrying on with their own agenda for world domination based on ego
If i may ask, neither of you guys converted religions meaning you are just carrying on with what you were indoctrinated in as a child im sure so what makes you right and the other wroong?
abeg stop carrying on with venomous attacks on each other and send time loking for ways to make nigeria better, religious intolerance wont help anyone
kapische?

Thank you.

If you've been keeping up with the discussions between Olabowale and I, you will see that Olabowale is trying to convert me, but instead of trying to tell me about Islam, he tries to shake my faith in Christianity. The mistake he made was underestimating my faith and my ability to remove my own beliefs when I intend to. I asked him to come to me with facts and not insinuations. I am the type of person where if you want me to buy something you really have to sell it to me and I will definitely analyse every nook and cranny of it (I learned this in accounting, most especially in the branch of auditing). He approaches me with just a belief system, and I want hard facts. So far all he's done is show me that Islaam supports the theory of Judaism and Christianity.

But I do want you as well as Olabowale and others to know that I am not in the converting business. It is not my place. I don't have to fight God's battle, he does it very well. I won't convert Olabowale, the Holy Spirit will.

I also was not indoctrinated into Christianity. As a child I went wherever I was taken to. Particularly by my mother. My mother was not a Christian, she was secular. I was 8 when my mother decided to become a Christian, that's not to say that I didn't know something about it. I did, my uncles, aunts, grandparents were Catholics too. But did I know what it actually meant absolutely not. I jokingly gave my life to Christ several times. Until I started the university and I noticed that I wasn't content with my life. So I went searching and searching, until I found where I truly belonged. I felt God's embrace, I felt his love. That's where I am now, even with my trials, I still proclaim his name and know that he hasn't abandoned me.

I don't attack, I analyse. To me this is an analyses, just as I would analyse a financial statement. If you want me to buy your idea, well you've got to make sure you're telling the truth.

@ Frizzy

You still believe the Gospel of Barnabas to be true or do you believe the Qu'ran? Lol.

@~Lady~; As much as I like you, I need to subtly respond to your fallacies. It seems to me that you can not see how wrong you are. I have a better Book, but I will settle for your Bible to point out your mistakes. Its eaither that you can not see the faults and falures of the Bible or you just refuse to agree with truth and stubbornly gling to falsehood.

The more we dialogue the more I find that the truth does not lie in ISLAM. I really do want to thank you for helping me grow more in my faith and thank God more for his ever saving grace through Christ.

Please list the 12 nations that came from Ismail. It must not be less nor more than 12, otherwise the Bible will be wrong, yet again.

Ishmael had twelve sons. You will not dispute that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs, therefore his 12 sons are the tribes. They have also been mentioned in several literature from of old. These literature make reference to history.

Here are the sons:
Nebaioth
Kedar
Adbeel
Mibsam
Misham
Dumah
Massa
Hadad
Tema
Jetur
Naphish
Kedemah.

I asked you to really know the Bible before you comment and demand the authenticity of it. You will be amazed.

It's funny while doing research I stumbled upon a website in favour of Islam, I believe it's answeringchristianity.com or something like that. In their quest to prove that Ishmael was not a wild man, which is not regarded as a bad thing, they make a mistake and made a statement that insinuates that Ishmael isn't he father of the Arabs and that Pagan Arab existed before and Ishmael was fighting their practices. Take note to the below:

Ishmael was a wild man, and a "blessed" one by GOD Almighty (Gen. 17:19-21). He fought the pagan Arabs who practiced brutal slavery and degradation of women. It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom to bury daughters alive at the age of 4, because a birth of a female brought shame to the family. Many pagan Arabs used to practice it.

http://answering-christianity.com/ishmael_great_nation.htm

I keep making warnings to be careful not to contradict yourself, not just you Olabowale but muuuslims in general, it may come back to haunt you.

And is God now limited t6o the children of Isaac, alone? And before this, was God not the God of all that lived and is He not the God that are now living outside the bloodlines of Isaac? And the covenant still covers the children of Isaac who are evil doers and never believers in One God?

No God is not limited to the Children of Isaac, the Bible and the Torah do not remotely state that. Even the Torah/Old Testament testifies that God delivered not just the ISrealites but others as well and that he regarded others as his children:
"Are you not as the sons of Ethiopia to Me,O sons of Israel?" declares the LORD "Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt,And the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?

You see just as God punished the Ethiopians and Arabs and Egypt and other nations, he also punished the Isrealites. When he showed favour to the Isrealites he also showed favour to the other nations, especially when he was punishing the Isrealites. He gave victory to other nations and gifts to those in those nations that proclaimed him to be God. If they wanted to show that they are the favourites, why then would they include their destruction? Why wouldn't they just call everyone evil and say that they are the only blessed ones?
Like I said make sure you know the Bible before you start making claims, you will be highly surprised.

They never showed Ishmael to be a mad man. They never showed Ishmael to be evil. According to the Bible and the Torah, Ishmael was not evil and a promise was made to him that he will have a great nation and truly Arabia is a great nation.
I am still trying to understand why you're trying to prove that Ishmael is not a bad man, when even the Bible doesn't lay claim to it.
Yeah he was called a wild man. So was John the Baptist, and we hold him in high regards. He was the one that showed us to baptise with water, while Christ baptised with the Spirit.
Yet he was weird and he lived in the wild and he ate lcusts and honey. Tell me why would a man who ate locusts and honey be held in high regards.
Stop reading too much into nothing.

And the covenant still covers the children of Isaac who are evil doers and never believers in One God?

How are they not believers in one God. Be careful not to allow hatred to take over you and cause you to make false claims. If you're referring to the Golden calf, that would only go to show that they didn't skew the Torah and that they even put their wrong doings in there. Why would I want to show that I am bad and an evil doer or a disobedient child when writing my history that I want people to think that I am the only favoured child?

[quoteAre you aware that the Jews are enmasse Buhddists?]

[/quote]And there are Jews that are muuuslims too. Islam is a religion, Buddhism is a religion, just as you have converts from Judaism to Islam, you have converts to Buddhism. Don't forget you also have from Islam to Christianity. If we are to condemn people and judge them as bad then we're all condemned, and yes that includes me and you.

[quote]They practice Kabala? Are these people who are still covered under any covennants which will prevent them from not suffereing in Hellfire?

And there are muuslims who commit adultery and rape innocent children, are these people who are still covered under any cocenants which will prevent them from suffering in hellfire?
come on man you can do better than this. this is poor scholarship. this isn't the way to handle a discussion or a debate. come on do better.

Do you know the essence of the covenant? If a man/woman ends up in Hellfire, does it mean that he/she benefits from the Covenant?

Same question to the muuuslims. Like I said, do better.

Wrong prophesy.

Prove it. You can't say that the prophecy is wrong, when the Christians and Jews had so much tension between them about the prophecies.

You guys chose the wrong path. This is the only reason that Surah Fatiha referes to Christianity as a path that leads astray, while Judaism as a path of great wrath.

I don't care what the Surah says. Far as I'm concerned you haven't proven the authenticity to me. And I have gone so far as to read the book. Man come on. Come on do better.

In I.s.lam it is Massiah; wiped over.

Yeah um the term is messiah. Even in the Qu'ran. I know I saw it. Now the definiton of messiah is?
Don't forget that the word existed before Islam arose as it is today, so tell me the meaning, don't forget it's a Hebrew word, so tell me the meaning.

And according to you, Wiped over what?

I am not in a bowl. I like your analogy. You make me laugh. Please read your Bible very carefully, before you respond to me. Explain the verse Mark 12 Verse 29. How then on the Cross the Bible claim that Jeses cried out "My God, My God, why has thou forsakened me?" It will therefore mean that you have two gods, would it be?

Oh look the desperate cry of a muuslim, rather than show the Islaaamic faith, destroy the faith of others and when they have doubt bring them to Islaaam, wrong tactic to be used on me, try again.

What you posted had nothing to do with my statement. So try again. We already discussed this part, but let me indulge you anyway. Christ is God in the flesh. Yes you have the head huncho, the big man himself GOD, and then you have himslef that he manifested in the flesh, because he is God and is capable of anything but lying. And then you have his spirit who guides.

I do have this question though. Do muuuslims believe that Jesus was the Word of God and the Spirit of God? Because the Qu'ran calls him that.

"Sura 4:171

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Three (Trinity)" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs"

Funny how the Qu'ran contradicts itself. How can one man be the Word of God and the Spirit of God and not be God? How can Olabowale be the Spirit of Efeosa, or Efeosa's word? (I really do want you to answer this)

Muhaamad made a very bad mistake by not understanding the meanings and the origins of words, when he spoke of the messiah and the trinity. I will address the trinity here.

TRINITY: This Latin word means "the number three, a triad", an abstract noun formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple), as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).

So you see three forms in one (unity). It's a community (hope you get the joke there, haha)

You asked me the question above and I already answered it. Again, Massiah in I.sl.am means wiped over as in protected. And neither the Jews nor the followers of Jesus could say for sure that he dies on the cross! Remember that his blood never coagulated at anytime. And he did not go through the state of regormortise. Not at anytime in the whole ordeal. And you know it and I know it.

No I don't. I was not there and neither were you and neither was Muhaaamad. So no we do not know whether his body rigor mortised. Tell me, if I come to you and I say that my grandmother is dead, do I have to say that her body became rigor mortised in order for you to believe me. When Abraham died, did the Qu'ran say that his body was rigor mortised in order for you to know that he was dead? Or did they say the same for Ishmael, or better yet Muhaamad?
We do know that a blood can coagulate and a person be alive, so come up with something better.

Um go over the wiped over thing for me again, I don't see the relationsip it has with protection. I didn't know to protect, you had to wipe over.

But you want me to forget it when it comes to the evil of the children of Isaac

Do not accuse me of what I do not do.
I remember saying that there are Jews that I cannot stand, and never have I praised the Jews.

I have expained the covenant so many times and this will be my last; at least on Nairaland. Ibrahiim disagreed with his idol worshipping people, so he exiled himself from them. He was seeking the true One God and multihead god or gods. Finally he arrived in Jerusalem and settled. He said to his Lord, My life, my death, all my worship and all my deeds are for your pleasure, Oh God. And I am the first (in my generation) to submit my will to you 100% as a M.us.lim.

By this God tested him. God commanded him to separate himself from his son, the apple of his eyes. So he took Ismail and his mother, young Hajah to Makka. In time God tested himsome more about his slaughter of his son. He can only slaughter the only son that he had. If he had two sons, it would never have been a great test. After he passed this second test, he made a prayer in Makka at a place called the station of ibrahiim. Thats in Kaaba/Masjid Haram.

In the prayer, he prayed that all prophets after him should come through his bloodline and to make Makka a secure place. Prophets are leaders for those people that they are sent to. God accepted his prayer with a condition that whoever among his children that worship anything else but He, will not be under that blessing. The sign of the covenant was to circumcise the males. Ibrahim circumcised himself and his only son, Ibrahiim. However after the test of the slaughter the good news of Isiaq and Yakub was delivered. You will agree with me that a person who is supposed to be a father would not be demanded to die at young age, even before the opportunity to become a father

Of course, why didn't I think of that. That is the only wya that Muhaaamad could legitimise his claim. The covenant had to just be that there will be prophets. Of course this makes it easy for muuslims to just say that the prophets had to just come from the bloodline of Abraham. Now what I want to know is why were they all Isrealites (until muhaaamad ofcourse), why didn't God just shuffle and give all the sons of Abraham their own prophets, this woud still fulfill the covenant. Why are there so many from Isaac's line and just one from Ishmael's line? I thought Ishmael was the first son? Why did God just bypass him and not give him his birthright? Certainly the oldest son would be the leader, and God would make sure that most of the Prophets are from his line, I mean that's just not fair and it's not right. How can the Prophets of God come from the younger brother's bloodline? Does that make sense? Would a Just God ignore the firstborn son of his friend? That doesn't seem right. What religion and culture makes that right?
(be very careful how you answer these, you don't want to contradict yourself)

What did the Prophets Prophecy? Certainly they were prophets, so they had to prophecy. Don't tell me what the Bible says that shows Muhaamad, and don't show me the prophecies of the quran. I want to know what prophecies in the quran Moses prophecied and Jesus prophecied and Noah prophecied and so on and so forth.

And it is not surprising that Mu.ha, mmad was sent to all of mankind and my friend you do not need more than 1 prophet for it

How is it not surprising that Muhaaamad was sent to all of mankind, but it is surprising that Jesus was set to all of mankind?
I thought they were all just prophets, aren't they on the same level?

If Ibrahiim never forgot his son Ismail, then how is it that you know the true relationship between the members of the family?

We know the true relationship because he never forgot. Seriously did you really just ask that question? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Maybe I don't understand this english language anymore. Can someone veify that he asked this question? please.

I am a man and I know how these things work. I disagree with you about the jealousy of a woman. If Sarah had been a jeolous woman, the noble prophet (as) would never have allowed M.us.lim woman to bear Sarah. Again the Bible continues to make false accusation. Let us continue to dialogue, and in time God will open your heart to the truth. A woman can not control the elect of God. Ibrahiim was an elect of God.

I am a woman and I know how these things work. If your husband is sleeping with another woman, even though it is his wife, you are bound to be jealous.
The Bible doesn't say that she was jealous. That was just me coming to a conclusion on my own o, no go talk sey Bible talk am, because it didn't.
I don't care if Muhaaamad allowed the name Sarah to be used. If I was not a muuuslim or a christian or a Jew, I would use the name Sarah because I like it and because it means princess.
Sarah was his wife. You're speaking as if you don't have a wife. You seriously think that because Abraham was an elect, Sarah couldn't be a wife to him. Sarah wouldn't tell him what she liked and didn't like. I thought Muhaaamad was an elect of God and his wives had a say in his life. Or did he just order them around. I though Islaaam brought freedom to women, lol.

Then tell me how Ka aba is claimed to be built by Ibrahiim and his son Ismail?

Simple the same way Muhaaamad claims a lot of things. He put it in the Qu'ran.

Afterall, when Ibrahiim left his young family in that outpost, the Kaaba was not there as a building

I thought Adam built it. How is it now that Abraham and Ishmael built it?

Tell me why it is the M.u.slims who observe the remembrance and the rites of the slaughter; remember it was a symbolic thing, a proof of obedience to the commandment of God

Because Muhaaamad said so. I thought it was that simple.
Look Muhaaamad certainly encountered Christians and Jews, they were all around him. Of course he couldn't understand their views and the words.
Why didn't he just become a Christian or Jew? It was foreign to him. The Arabian culture was very much a part of him. It was his character. He still wanted the wives and he still wanted to raid people. It was his culture. It's funny how he was the only one allowed to have that many wives. When the revelation came to him that muuuslims could marry more than one wife, they questioned him on why he had more, and lo and behold another revelation saying that "Any woman who wishes to dedicate her soul to the prophet, if the prophet wishes to marry her, this only for you and not for the believers."
or is it when he wanted to marry Zaid's wife that he received a revelation that said that God gave Zainab to him.
The Surahs covered his actions. He received the revelations conveniently. No wonder it was revealed over time.

how are you doing, your mum and boyfriend? hope great.

too much stress in that area, so broke up with boyfriend and not speaking to mum or she's not speaking to me.
anyway too much wahala. I need me time. The whole situation transpired to something else in one week.
I am tired.

@~Lady~: You continue to say that a covenant was made with Ibrahiim, through a son of his. That is a nn no. Your greatest mistake and misunderstanding of the whole realtionship between God Almighty and he, Ibrahiim. Whatever the covenant was, it just cover his progenies. First the line of saac received the manifestation of it and in ended with Jesus. Then the line of Ismail completed the who covenent with Mu.ha.mm.ad, alone. They say once is enough. Have you ever heard that? And you as a woman does not want your husband to have another woman, because you think you are enough. Right?

Ok so I'm going to post this for you, so that you may know what the Bible truly says, because clearly you don't understand me.

Genesis 17: 15-22

15 God further said to Abraham: "As for your wife Sarai, do not call her Sarai; her name shall be Sarah
15 I will bless her, and I will give you a son by her. Him also will I bless; he shall give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples shall issue from him."
17 Abraham prostrated himself and laughed as he said to himself, "Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Or can Sarah give birth at ninety?"
18 Then Abraham said to God, "Let but Ishmeal live on by your favor!"
19 God replied: "Nevertheless, your wife Sarah is to bear a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will maintain my covenant with him as an everlasting pact, to be his God and the God of his descendants after him.
20 As for Ishmael, I am heeding you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear you by this time next year.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

And Jesus being a Messiah, it was for his people alone, the nations of the children of Israel; the Jews. Jesus had no authority beyond his people.

Tell that to the prophecies.

God then raised the children of Ibrahiim, still but now through the Ismail bloodline, and Mu.ham.m.ad was the only prophet to cancel all the tribalist and regional terminology of chosen people of God.

After it was done centuries before. Tell this to the Christians who were not Jewish.

All of these above you can find in Qu.r'a.n. I don't know how to assist you if you are bugged down with thinking that the term messiah means more than just the title it was.

Then tell me the meaning of the term messiah.

What about the title friend of God that Ibrahiim was? What about Moses wo God spoke to amny times without an Angel between them? What happens with the verses of the Bible disclaiming that Jesus God? Can you honestly disregard those verses?

First no Bible verse disclaims that Jesus is God. Muuslims in their desperate quests and lack of understanding interpret it to be that way.
The title of friend of God still stays with Abraham and same with Moses. Your point is? That what you're saying supports the Bible? Seriously man you're sounding like a fish without water.

Its funny how the christians are making this leap of faith putting this simple man, Jesus in a position that he never had claimed for himself.

Lol. Are you so sure? The witnesses and history claim it to be that he did say that. Why was he crucified again?
It's funny how the Jewish history supports the Christian history in that Jesus did claim to be the messiah and that he was crucified. Because he claimed to be the messiah, he was crucified.
Define messiah for me.

And just because your Bible praised Isaac, we are all well aware that his son Jacob was full of deceit even supported by his own wife against another son, Esau! And Jacob did not stop there. And his sons never faired better because the sold his favorite son Joseph and deceived him afterwards. And my thinking lowly about Arabs does not mean I think better of the Children of Israel, either. They are the same and we see that they are full of deceit every which way till sunday.

Well goody you understand how God works. Stop trying to make claim that the Christians claim that Isaac's sons were perfect. We don't praise Isaac or say that Ishmael is worse than Isaac. If you read the Bible you will see that Ishmael is mentioned and never was it said that the guy was bad. I can be a woman of the wild (a wild woman) and not have that be a bad thing,
Seriously stop thinking of the wild as bad. Besides later on it goes on to talk about the children of Ishmael and the prophecy about him opposing his kinsmen came true there.

It is the same Jews that Nigeria was using to extracate Umar Dikko (And that fool should be ashamed of himself) to Nigeria. It is the same Jews who after they got payment for it tipped off the M I5 and M I6 of British intelligence about it. So you see they are even worse than the Arabs. Either way, your Biblical prophesies are wrong. I guess the Bible is batting 0 for 2 on the mound here. They are not even foul balls, and just one more it will be three strikes and you know you are out!

Hatred is not the way to go. No one is praising the Isrealites. Dude misunderstanding is not good. I have come across jews that I can't stand and Arabs that I can't stand either. I am not the one to judge the Jews and say that they are worse than the Arabs, besides I am not the one that called the Arabs wild in a derogatory way, you did. That is your problem not mine. I have come across Arabs that I love and appreciated their friendship.
Stop thinking that the Christians are out against the Arabs. The Arabs are the ones quick to kill.

One more time. Ishmael is not viewed as someone bad in the Bible, but we know that the covenant that God has was to be carried out through the bloodline of Isaac. Even the Bible shows that. Well if it was just ordinarily through Abraham's bloodline that the covenant was to be carried and God did not specify which son, what about Abraham's other sons? Where are their prophets too? Why didn't the completion come from them. Why Ishmael? What about Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Why not them?

Again I ask, what is the covenant? We know the sign of the covenant, now tell me what is the covenant?

If he and his mother were dismissed and his father forgot all about him, how was it possible that the Jews knew about him and his children? If somebody was forgotten, as a child (You could never guess the age of Ismail when the separation occurred), how can those people who never were born knew enough about him?

Please point out where I stated that Abraham forgot his son. Clearly God would not allow that. I believe I answered this above.

It is a natural thing for the old man to keep the childless old woman with him in the house. And to transfer the younger and more energetic mother, who could weather the time of being alone more vigorously.

Hey I am not Abraham. Who knows maybe he preferred an old woman, maybe he couldn't keep up with the young woman, Hey I am not a man.
Abraham did not send Hagar away by his own wish. Sarah requested it. It doesn't make it right, but she requested it. Call it jealousy of a woman.

And we see that Ibrahiim built the Ka aba in Makka with his son Ismail helping him. And we see that the remembrance of the rite of sacrifice is observed by the Musl.i.ms yearly

You still have to prove how credible the Qu'ran is.

Anyway, I can very much enlighten u on the practices of the Arabs before Muhaaamad and why they are so similar.

If I don't then why have I decided to post it. Huh

So you believe that muhaaamad is the messiah and that Mary gave birth without pains.

So much for the Qu'ran being the truth.

Hello everyone

yes thats what i meant . . .and am not even catholics sef, but the discrimination here is too much

I thought it was a Catholic thread.

You can join us if you like.

@Frizzy

You're still quoting the Barnabas gospel.
Do you believe the Gospel to be truth?

Are you reading the same material am reading? Okay lets see a good example here. If I told my corporate manager to tell a former employee to remember how much he used to enjoy working my organization. And the reason that I want him to know is that it is a public knowledge that his current job is not paying enough. And we at the same time opening new offices in his neighborhood.

What is happening is that he is not working for us, yet but because of his experience with us, we know that he will be better with us, away from his dead end job.

I still don't see how this relates to Isaac and Ishmeal. A covenant was not made with the employee or any of his relations in the first place.

The case of the Children of Israel is the same. They do not have any special and separate and exclusive "convenant," separate from what God has with Ibrahim. Iwant you to know that the first physical sign of the Covenant is circumcision. I am just using your Bible to kill your argument. And Ismail was the son who was circumcised, log before Isiaq.

Stop making yourself believe you know what's in the Bible. How did you use the Bible to kill my argument when you just supported my argument. The Bible states that the physical sign of the covenant is circumcision, so how are you using the Bible to kill my argument? Ishmeal was not circumcised before Isaac.  According to the Qu'ran it may have been so, but according to the Bible it is not so.

And from the Qu/r'an, we see that Ibrahim ask God to make all prophets that will come after him be from his loin. These prophets and his children to be people who are people of paradise, successful, prayerful. God accept his prayer and said that whoever from his bloodlines who worship anything apart from Him, that person will not be counted amount the successful

Ok good, so where are the prophets from his loin with the son that the covenant was with? How come the prophets only came from Isaac's line? But more importantly how can it be that the Isrealites were "lost" and are told to come back to the "truth" when the Prophets were with them. Shouldn't Ishmeal's line then be the "lost" ones to come back to the "truth". If not then show me the Arabic Prophets or at least show me what they believed in before Muhaaamad, if they weren't so lost.

We see that no prophet came after Ibrahim, that was not from his family.  And many came from from Isiaq, and ended up with Jesus. Then the only one that come after Jesus, was the only one that came from Ibrahim's line of Ismail Children i Mu.ha.mmad.

It's amazing how even the Qu'ran supports the "theory" that is in the Bible. God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Isaac and truly the Prophets are from his bloodline, even in the Qu'ran. So how is it that the covenant was made with Abraham through Ishmeal again? And how is it that the Isrealites were the lost ones when the Prophets rose from them.

Prophets are from God. And God's ordained religion is I.s.lam. Ethnicity was not at play, so the prophets are Is.la.mic prophets not Israelites prophets. No one will go to Paradise or hellfire because of tribe. But people will go to paradise or hellfire because of religion.

Well then disprove the logic that is in the Bible. Show me the prophets that rose from the coveant God made with Abraham through Ishmeal. If you mention any of the prophets that were Isrealites, then you prove the Bible. God was consistent with the Prophets, why didn't a prophet shoot up from the yoruba tribe? If it has nothing to do with the people or where they are from. Why did God then limit his covenant to Abraham's children? Why didn't he just make the covenant with everyone?

By A.l.lah, they did not. And Ijebu Ode, Ibadan, Abekuta, and many others, icludin Lagos, ikorodu and Even Aghor, are all in the south, south. They are all M.u.sli.m towns and cities. I only give you a snippet of even what the future may holds. You are Bini woman. And surprise Isl'am is in Bini, etc. Isl.am is in the east now. I can see you becoming M.u.s.lim woman, easily. You can't fight it, if God has counted you for you.

Finally, today, oil is now being discoverd in the West and many other places. Gold is in Kwara an so is iron ore. What about coal and others. I only use oil because it is something that many could relate to. But what is interesting is that you can not even point to one thing that is natural resources/riches that is in the land that Israelites controlled for 4000 years, if I mockingly quote David. (David and I are friends, so people should not read any meaning to it, more that what is obvious. To use the christian cliche: No interpretation).

Exactly my point. You're the one trying to show "specialty" with the Arabs and the riches. By the way those cities may be muuslim but where's the oil? The oil or riches of the land has nothing to do with it. Besides you forget that the state of Isreal did not exist until last century.

Don't for get that you said that the Children of Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah, because they thought or they were expecting a Messiah on a chariot. I only use Moses to say that with all the miracles that he performed, he never came to them as a warrior. But Jesus came just in the same way that all the prophets before him came to their nations. Come to think of it Moses was rejected before he was accepted. Jesus was accepted by few, except that the majority rejected him. And he came in the same meek way and needing support and followers like every prophet before him.

There is a reason why Christ is called messiah. Muhaaamad never understood that. If you or muhaaamad know the meaning of messiah, you won't be a muuuslim.
If he was just a regular prophet, why weren't the other prophets called messiah and why were there prophecies of the "same" messiah? Why is Christ alone the messiah? Why not Moses or Adam or Noah or Isaac? Explain to me that, but first give me the definition of messiah.

Apart from the question about your brother and your being hard nosed about ismail and isiaq, two sibling who are only from the one who had the primary covenant/relationship with God, the answer to each is yes.  And neither Ismail or Isiaq is involved in any covenent with God, except what was Ibrahim, under which they were covered and benefitted.

So what was the relevance of Ishmeal, if it was just with Abraham?

So why is it difficult to know that the first child is the one ever qualified to be called the only child, up to until his fisrt younger sibling is born.

Am so glad you said up to or until his younger sibling was born. So tell me who said Isaac was the only child? The Bible does not dismiss Ishmeal. We know there was a promise about Ishmeal. The promise is there. Truly the Arab nation is a great nation.
We're saying that the covenant with Abraham was after Isaac was born. Don't try to prove that the Bible says that the covenant was before Isaac was born, we already went through that. It's after Isaac was born.

You need to read the Bible. And it was your Biblical Angel who said that Ismail will be wild. Not his descendants, but him. And we see that the Biblical Angel missed tge mark, again.

I don't think so. The angel said: he shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; In opposition to all his kin shall he encamp. I believe we see that even today, how the world is with the Arabs and how the Arabs are with their kin, the Isrealites.
You are a yoruba man, though you are muuslim, and I do remember you telling me how much you can't stand the Arabs, I think you called them wild, but my memory fails me at the moment. Wouldn't that make truth what the angel said. In order to dissect this issue, we'll have to go to the character of an Arab. We see the character in Muhaaamad. But that is another discussion for another day.

I hear you. Cain did not kill Abel when they wer both children. A little child can not be labelled as bad, unless he exhibits the traces. Otherwise the label is completely unjustifiable. So tell me what this child who is label wild from infancy, tell me one wild thing he did? Afterall, it seems that the Bible followed his life, since there is a record of his bloodlines. What did he do that can qualify him as a wild person? If the label does not fit thereof, you must acquit.

I believe I addressed this issue above. It was a prophecy from the angel. The angel told Hagar that there would be many decendants, too many to count and truly there are many Arabs. The Lord told Abraham that he will make a great nation from Ishmeal and truly Arabia is a great nation. The angel said that the child will be a wild ass of a man, well truly the Arabs believe in raiding and keeping the booty. I believe that is a wild way.
About his bloodline, well why don't you tell me? That is your job here. You're the one trying to convice me that the covenant was with Abraham through Ishmeal, so show me Ishmeal's bloodline.
Oh please don't forget to mention the covenant itself. It is through Isaac that God was to carry his covenant, but the sign was the circumcision, so why not tell me what the covenant was.

Tell me a single wrong that he did. Even Jacob, one can point to a wrong that he did. Use your Bble and I will use your Bible

Why use the Bible? I thought the Qu'ran held the truth. Let's use that. We're trying to prove the authenticity of the Qu'ran here.

Can you list any of them? lol

Ofcourse not, the Bible doesn't focus on the son that the covenant was not to come through. Besides the Bible says that he and his mother was dismissed. But since the Qu'ran has the answers show me Ishmeal and his bloodline.

those books which are not included in the protestant bible (macabees ,etc) are not necessarily considered false or bad. they just are not congruent with the teachings of the other books. and so to avoid confusion, they were excluded

They are congruent with the teachings of the other books. Infact they support the New Testament. Go and read them.

The Protestants took those books out from the Bible because Martin Luther took the books out. Luther took those books out because they were not congruent with his teachings and because the Jews took them out from the Torah on reasons other than they are not congruent with scripture, because they are. They were taken out because they were written by Jews who spoke Greek, or Aramaic or it was written outside of Palestine.

The Protestants stuck to Luther's exclusion of the books until they realised that Luther also took out James and some other books in the New Testament, I believe he took out Hebrew also.
So my question to you is why didn't the Protestant just stay consistent and exclude the books in the New Testament also? Why only the Old Testament? After all Luther already declared that the books in the New Testament weren't in line with the scriptures. Why are they still considered scripture today?

So much for just transparent and logical selection huh?

Wait o, how come my questions about what Christ said in the Qu'ran and about Mary being the Sister of Aaron have not been answered.

Why the dodging?


Lol@ how I asked one question and it spurned into a big picture.

Brethren these are the questions we should be asking, instead of resorting to bashing them. Ask them about the truth and not conspiracy theories or about what we heard and read. If they hold the truth they will be able to defend it without beating around the bush. Clearly they can't.

What drives someone to suicide?

YANKEEEEEE

I 'understand'. I had said I didnt want to start an argument so I wouldnt say more than that.

~Lady~ Men and Women of God.

I'm glad you stuck true to your word.

Thanks for the clarification.

please hope you get the essence of the post?it should be clear to you from the epistle i v written, i meant the whole point of religion is to follow whatever commandments either the 10 commandments which is the corner stone of christianity and being a good christian or the great religious equivalent, no dissing but your nit picking rather than focusing on the bigger picture is what this thread is about

I understand your full gist.
I didn't see the need to quote everything you said, so I fingered in on what would bring my point out the best.

Point is, we're to spread the Gospel of God. How else are we to do it, if we don't engage in discussions?
A_K_O explains it further. Not everyone that asks questions is doing it to start strife or point and ridicule.

Uhmmm, thats actually the impression I got, I aplogise so now its all good init?

Apology accepted. Keep in mind ~Lady~ doesn't go looking for trouble. I have many important things to do with my life. I do enjoy being asked about my beliefs it gives me a chance to proclaim it. I just can't stand it when people who know nothing, think they know it all and then condemn others as if they're God, so much for being a Christian.

I've had many chances but don't. When trouble finds her, she takes broom and pursues it.

We are all christians, thats the most important thing. If I never see you on earth, I'd love to meet you in heaven. By then we would all know 'whats hot and whats not'. But for now, remember Jesus said that it is by our love for each other that others will know that we are His disciples

Truth.

I also know this traditional sauce common among the delta and Benin people called owo,yellowish sauce made out of potash and palmoil and some other ingredients involve but the delta people makes it differently.it goes well with yam too,very delicious.Please any delta person in the house?

I know you asked for delta people, but I am bini and know exactly what your talking about. Owo is mostly eaten with plantain, and it's great with yam. I remixed it and did it my own style by having it with rice. It was soo delicious. I had it this morning. Yummy.

all GOD asks of us as devout christians is to obey his words and commandments and to be a good christian and if you are a a great one,all that god asks of you is to be a devout a great one,obey his words and commandments

How is it that one becomes a Christian or muuslim to observe the commandments? Isn't it by spreading of the gospel? Ofcourse fighting isn't supposed to be, but nothing wrong in discussions.

There is nothing strange and ridiculous about this. Notice that I even looked at the church as a whole (pastors/priests ). So it's 'they', not 'you' that are giving allkinds of 'responses' to your churches, understand?

Yeah I saw what you wrote, I have to commend you for that. But I wasn't laughing because of what you wrote and not because of denomination. If we all agreed on the interpretation of the Bible and had the same doctrines and still had denominations, then I won't be laughing.

From what you posted below me, the first time, I thought you meant something else, as if I was trying to start strife or something along that line.

If you have the same belief and doctrine then you are welcome as a Catholic, if you know what I mean.

Well I see Imhotep answered you beautifully A_K_O. I hope you understand.


and what does M/WOGod mean?

Dude this is what I am talking about

I personally think that pastors nationwide can't unite because some are not pastors and some don't follow what the bibles teaches.some even follow their own doctrine,and the good ones don't want to mix with the bad ones.

sorry man, they can't because they do not all share same beliefs,

Pastors all over the world cannever unite,maybe till Christ comes.Not when one church sees itslf as better than others,not when churches have diverse views,believes and doctrines.Too much interpretation of the Bible and standards of churches cannever bring the pastors to come together

I am laughing because of the differing doctrines within these churches. Yes the Catholic Church is united, but our doctrines are ridiculed even though they have tested the hand of time and is still being revealed through the Holy Spirit.
I am laughing because you all ridicule the Catholic Church and are still trying to figure out why we remain with the Church, yet these are your responses to your churches.


If you feel you know me so well, why don't you tell me what I am truly talking about.

He said that the losers of the election will always claim it was unfair, but it wasn't the losers who were complaining

Don't twist the man's statements. He didn't say the losers. He said people were complaining most especially the losers.

I think he handled the questioning well and one has to be diplomatic about such things. Especially with Nigeria being under scrutiny the world over. Anything he says will be taken as gospel and may even be skewed. We've seen that happen not just in Nigeria also.

I commend him on the way he answered the questions about probing Obasanjo. He repeatedly said "the house" and not himself. He knows what can be spurned from him saying that he wanted Obasanjo probed, so he had to say "the house." He answered the question without implicating himself.


With that being said. What is up with his teeth? My goodness, someone get that man a dentist.

Seconded. The person that started this thread did not polarise denominations. I can't imagine why the person that posted before me is deciding to do so, its an unecessary digression dear,

You clearly have no idea why I'm laughing. I didn't say anything about denomination, just because I decided to be clear on who I was talking to.

[quoteI thought the tone is pretty clear? God is reminding them that under the benefit of the Primary covenant with Ibrahim, they were favored. Now the covenant is still on going as the final leadership is now a new prophet, their cousin. They should come into the fold and enjoy the favor, instead of spiritually off the track. Afterall, God who took idolatry from Makka is merciful enough to still over all people, and especially the other branch of Ibrahim's bloodline to come back to the fold of mercy.

They should be the ones who should be the first on the lead that lead to the worldwide means of mercy, under the leadership of M.u.hammad.]

[/quote]The tone is clear and it only proves that the Isrealites are the ones the covenant was with not the Arabs. So your interpretation of it, baffles me. Ok tell me the covenant that God had with the Arabs, since the "other" covenant has been with the Isrealites and now the Isrealites are to be allowed into the fold.
If they were spiritually offtrack, what were the Arabs, on track? I thought Muhaamad was dissatisfied with the way his people were and that's why he secluded himself.

You still haven't answered my question. Why are the Is'lamic Prophets Isrealites?

[quote]The biggest of favors is I.sl.am. Others may include the relative ease that wealth comes to them. Let me amuse you; The Jews of the world always say about the journey of Prophet Moses, that if only he has traveled a little further east or so, he ould have brought them to the lands under the arabs now. A land rich with Oil that the whole world can do without. Don't take my world for it, ask an American Jew. That should be easy for you.

The door of Is.l.am, a meabns of Mercy from God is wide open.

Or maybe if they traveled to the land where Nigeria is now, they would be rich in oil too. The Islamic Nigerians are in the North, the Christian Nigeirans are in the south, south east. The oil is in the South, South-east. Not a favour of Islam. So try again.

All you put up is very interesting. Moses, with all the wonderful works through him, he never claimed that he was the one working the process. He did not arrive to them as a liberator on Chariot either, rather as a refugee.

Where did I say that Moses was the one working the process?
Or that he arrived on a Chariot. The Jews were and are expecting someone who will be a king on this earth. Christ told them no. That the Kingdom is of heaven. They expected liberation from the Romans on this earth, not in heaven. That is my point. They were looking for the here and the now and not at eternity.
Moses spoke of the coming of the messiah, clearly Moses couldn't have been the messiah, Moses exalted the messiah. Why would Moses exault someone who is his equal?
Why does the Qu'ran call Christ the Messiah and ot acknowledge him as the Messiah, does it know what Messiah mean?

And Arabs, never at one time never stop the rite of male circumcision. All m.u.sl.im born are circumcised.Its interesting that you forgot, unless that younever read it that Ismail was circumcised along with his father, Ibrahim

And so what if they were circumcised, does it mean that the covenant was with Ishmeal? ALL WERE TO BE CIRCUMCISED. My brother is circumcised, did the covenant begin with him?
Were Arabs circumcised before Islaaam came to be in the time of Muhaaamad? Was Muhaaamad circumcised?

You should know as a first child. Can any of your younger siblings be called the only child?

No one says Ishmael isn't the Child of Abraham.

Never have I said that the arabs are exclusive on the covenant, against the other branches of the Children of Ibrahim. Rather, it is the Jews and the Christians who excluded the Arabs and called "Innocent Ismail, eben from Childhood," wild! A demeaning word or expresasion upon a little child of a beloved prophet who never stopped loving him.

Where did we say that he is wild?
He can be wild and still be loved by his father.

I thought Ishmeal grew into a man. Now he's a poor child.

My dear, the story is more than the esoteric application that we are giving it, as a gloss over on Nairaland. How can the son of a wonderful prophet like Ibrahim be wild ass?

How can Cain kill his own brother Abel. Isn't he the son of Adam?
My dear just because my mother is a saint, doesn't mean that I am.

Just because Ishmeal was Abraham's son, doesn't mean that he could have done no wrong.

Can you tell us if this child ever recorded to have done any evil? If you can not, then think whether the prophesy of such a horrible name like that fits him and very importantly was never fulfilled on him

What are you ranting on about? There's no recording of me being bad, does that mean that I am not? Was Abraham always good. When he was a kid did he not do evil?

I hope you know that Ishmael means God listens in Hebrew. What's so bad about that name?

Who said Ishmael is bad?

That shows that there are prophesies that are wrong or miss the mark, in the Bible. Afterall, Ismail (as) is dead!

Who said Ishmael's alive?

Ok now I'm worried about you. You're ranting now o.

I'm talking from the angle where someone hurts us, we have to learn how to forgive even if the person doesn't warrant it

The topic is about God.

and I thought humans weren't given the power to forgive.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

All Catholics know why I am laughing this loud

@~Lady~: The trick is that Christians are not of this world? And yet they live in it? And when they are facing death you see them saying that they don't want to die?

Give me a different trick, again, woman.

Did I ever tell you that I don't want to die? Am I not a Christian woman?

Did i not explain to you what "of this world" means? Man stop catching amnesia.

If the offender does not acknowledge his mistakes, we should also forgive.

I thought we are supposed to confess our sins.
So God forgives without us asking for forgiveness? I mean wouldn't that mean that everyone is saved? Even the Atheists and the mussslims? What are we living life to please God for? Why can't we all just do the wrong thing and he will forgive anyway, without us acknowledging and asking?

It only proof that his birth was foretold along with his name. Nothing else. But it is ironic that the christians abandoned this name for a lesser impressive name, Jesus!

What is the definition of Immanuelor Emmanuel? and What is the definition of Yahshua or Jesus? Don't forget to add the Christ at the end.

Why? And when you peel off the layers and get to the core of the name Immanuel, even in the Original semitic language, you will find no meaning other than its just a name. "God with us," does not mean God is the person named.

Oh good, you know the meaning of Immanuel, now tell me the meaning of Yahshua or Jesus.

What does "God with us" mean?

analyse it for me please: GOD WITH US.

The tone is past tense. They were bestowed a favor, a covenant under th bigger covenant which was earlier with Ibrahim. The favor and covenant with them had conditions for the fulfillment and the continuity. Read it again. And when Prophet Mu.ha.mmad came to th stage of prophethood, you will realize that he was honest to remind his "Cousins," the Jews thefavor of God on them in the time past.

Forgive me but I actually thought the covenant was made in Abraham's day and not Muhaaamad. Wouldn't that make it the past?

Now that they are not exclusively the holder of the favor to propagate the Oneness of God to Mankind, they were yet, again required to come to the fold of the the new bringer of the good stewardship, under the New Leader, M.uh.ammad! They were still children of Ibrahim regardless of the power shift to the new leadership, who is a child of Ibrahim from a different branch

Then show me the favour bestowed upon the Arabs. Because the Qu'ran speaks of those of the Children of Isrealites.

The favor and covenant did not come excluding the original relationship with Ibrahim. Afterall, th sign of the covenant is circumcision of males. The sign does not neccesarily means that one fulfills the essense of the covenant. Even today they circumcise their males, yet even in the time of Jesus, they refused to accept him. Your point is not good enough

The sign of the convenant is circumcision of Isrealite males. There were Gentile males or other males in the world that were not circumcised. Actually it does. If God asks me to worship him by bowing to him, and I do bow, then that means I worship him. Bowing here is the sign and worship is the covenant. They refused to accept Jesus because they did not understand Jesus, just as you do not. Jesus called himself the messiah and they were expecting the messiah to come on a chariot and rain fire and brimstone on the heads of the Romans. They expected a "worldly" champion, instead they received a champion of God. So they refused him because he didn't meet their expectations.
The circumcision doesn't show that they should accept Jesus. The circumcision was to show their devotion to God. Not to the "prophets" (for the sake of this discussion, Jesus will be a "prophet" So them refusing Jesus doesn't mean they refuse to show their devotion. They circumcised even in the day of Moses, but weren't completely accepting of him. Aaron and his wife challenged Moses too.

Finally, when you quote the truth to justify a cnotinum of favor and covenant with the Israelite, you should read the Qu.r'a.n to see that God terminates the "ethnic" based favor, as Isl.a.m became a complete religion that is Universally commanded upon all, and th rejection of all other ways, religions, etc.

Sorry that is where Christianity comes in. But you're trying to prove to me that the covenant was with the Arabs and not the Isrealites. So continue with it and stop bringing the spread of Is'lam into it.

No m.u.slim ever said the covenant was with Ismail. God's covenant(s) is with Ibrahim. It cover his children; all of them the first and at some time the only child, even though he was from the second wife. It also covered the second child, even though he was from the older wife. It also covered other children from other wife or wives. A child never ceases to be the child of the father, even when he casually disowns him. The wife of the father or the other brothers are not in the position to dictate the bloodline of a child with his father. It just does not work that way.

Don't make me bring up the topic.

The covenant was made with Abraham but was fulfilled through whom? Because I know muuuslims who want to fight with me for saying that the covenenat was brought to fruition with the Isrealite children (Isaac's).

I don't know what Jesus said, since we have conflicting statements from him ad those who put words in his mouth after he was raised up

Surah 19:28 Then she brought him to her people, mounted. They said, 'O Mary, surely, thou hast committed a monstrous thing!
Surah 19 :29 'O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother an unchaste woman!'
Surah 19: 30 Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?'
Surah 19:31 Jesus said, 'I am a servant of God. He has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet;
Surah 19:32 'And He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live
Surah 19:33 'And He has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless;
Surah 19:34 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.'
Surah 19:35 That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt

You see that no one from the early christians said that Jesus told him to erase from the Bible that he was just a man, a prophet, a messiah to the house of Israel, only. If Jesus is more than what the M.us.lims said that he is, the proof of it would have been erase from the Bible, even before Muhamm.ad got the revelations

Why would the proof be erased from the Bible when the Bible came about before Muhaaamad? The Bible is not a lie.

It is not possible that Jesus would contradict himself: Saying one thing will alive and saying the other to human being afterwards from heaven.

Now do you see why Christians do not believe what the Qu'ran says. Christ won't contradict himself. So we don't believe that Christ or an angel appeared to Muhaamad. By the way I thought it was God speaking in the Qu'ran and not Jesus (the prophet).

He had three years of gospel preaching of the kingdom of heaven to tell people about his true position. What he said then was the truth; The ones that contradict what was Paul and company's after thought.

The story wsa not changed dear. If you read it you will see it is the same. What about those that were before Paul that proclaimed the same thing? What about those that walked with him as his disciples and he spoke these words to them everyday and they proclaim him the messiah and procliamed him the Son of God and proclaimed that he and God are one?
Should we now believe a man who appeared centuries later claiming he got a revelation from God about a man over those who lived with the man?


May I ask, how did Mary the mother of Jesus, become the sister of Aaron?