mdsocks, you still haven't answered my question .

Its christains that have a problem and not us, because you call him what he isn't.

This is a red herring; irrelevant point.

And on why didn't muhammad take on the fight of the anti christ.

Every one of the prophets had his own destined work on earth. It is Allah (swt) that have laid down this. I have got no problem with that.

Straw-man tactic; another irrelevant point! I did not ask why Mohammed isn't sent to take on the anti-Christ; that was not my question! I asked why this arch-false prophet and leader of the greatest apostasy yet against God's message is designated after the Christ (anti-Christ) rather than after God's prime apostle in Islam, Mohammed? Why is he called the anti-Christ, and not, for instance, the anti-Mohammed, or anti-Muslim?

P.S. You know, there's is nothing wrong with saying you don't know the answer to my question - and I say this in good faith, not sarcastically.

mdsocks, You did not answer my question

First of all, i had retired to bed when all these ramblings where going on.

Its not that i don't know what to say or that.

I cannot distrupt my sleeping hours because of some simple issues you guys don't get over here.

Well, may I remind you that my question was originally directed at olabowale, not you. You voluntarily answered his question, and thus the onus is on you to clarify your position.

What is contradictory,

Do you seem to understand english atall.

Reread what i wrote their.

In persona, they are equal but in their works they are very different.

Perhaps you are the one confused and muddling issues. Your 'equality' statement only makes sense if you're saying that Jesus and Mohammed were both human beings - rather one being supernatural and the other human as we Christians believe - and if that is your point, then it is a moot and highly inconsequential one. By your own words, and as I said earlier, Mohammed's greater prophetic office in Islam makes him greater than Jesus in Islam! It does not make him super-human, or semi-divine, but it does make him the greater prophet. This is precisely what I said in my last post:

If Muhammed was the greatest in his works, as well as the seal of the prophets, then he had the 'greater' prophetic office - its that simple. No need playing an obfuscatory game of semantics here.

No more obfuscatory semantics! If Mohammed's emergence and work completes and supercedes Christ's as God's representative on earth, then what sense is to be made of an 'anti-Christ' challenging Christ's work eons after Mohammed completed and superceded that office? This only makes sense if the mission of both prophets were mutually exclusive - but your interpretation of Islam does not allow for this, for you said:

Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of isreal but Prophet muhammad was ent to The whole of mankind and he had a greater task at hand because he had the hardest of jobs to do.

Where are the Quranic sources to back up this statement? I see that you later quoted from the NT to buttress this. First of all your quotations suffer from the oh-so-repeated error of ignored context. Pilgrim1 has expertly dispensed with these. Secondly, using the NT to back up your point is clearly antithetical to your cause. The NT declares that prophets like Mohammed who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and preach a different gospel than that of the apostles are liars that deserve eternal damnation! So the NT cannot help you here, for it emphatically rejects Mohammed's prophethood.
What you need to do is to bring out the relevant verses where the Quran states that Jesus was just for the Jews and Mohammed for the whole world.

In case you are still befuddled, my point is that the existense of the anti-Christ concept in Islam has certain problems that do not arise in Christianity. If Mohammed is the greatest prophet - and especially if Islam truly holds that Christ was just for the Jews - then how come this leader of a world-gripping apostasy is called the anti-Christ in Islam? Why anti-Christ? Why isn't this villain designated after Mohammed, who after had the worldwide manate according to you?

mdsocks, you did not answer my question. This is what I asked:

how does one explain the anti-climatic future emergence of a purported arch-foe to Christ rather than the supposed greater personality and office of Muhammad? How come there is an anti-Christ, but no anti-Muhammad? What does Christ - though a 'mere' prophet - still represent that was not assumed and superceded by Muhammad's appearance, thereby warranting the rise of an arch-opponent to Christ and not to Muhammad?

, and to that you said this:

Nobody is claiming that any prophet is above the other.

All are equal and each has his own destined work on earth.

Now later you said this

he was the greatest in his works?

Was a prophet destined to cap all the works of the former prophets.

Both statements are contradictory. If Muhammed was the greatest in his works, as well as the seal of the prophets, then he had the 'greater' prophetic office - its that simple. No need playing an obfuscatory game of semantics here. That said, the questions I asked still stand. If Muhammad completed the works of all the other prophets including Christ, then what do we make of the future rise of a prime antagonist to challenge the 'incomplete' work of Christ? Why not Muhammad, Islam's seal of the prophets? Why challenge the incomplete work of a 'lesser' office (Christ) after the fact of a greater office in Muhammad which supposedly completes and supercedes Christ's? And for that matter, why not any of the other prophets such as Moses and David - if we hold to your preveiously stated equality of the prophets?

Alternatively, can you tell us what Christ represents - that Muhammed doesn't - that this spiritual villain is opposed to?

Leilah

Only question he has is why jesus/issa comes back to fight the ani christ/dijels for us he wants to know why is it jesus that is going to do this? how come no other prophets?

Well, surely  this isn't rocket science; really its all intuitive . Think about the names 'Christ' versus 'anti-Christ'. If a personality is identified as an 'anti-Christ', then it obviously means that he is the quintessential opponent or arch-nemesis of the Christ personality and all he represents. Now, if Christ is indeed God clothed in human flesh and not just a prophet as Christians believe, then clearly he is the only one with the power to nullify his purported opposite. No other mere prophet can step into this role. And in any case, all the other prophets are dead, whereas Christ is alive in heaven.

Now let's consider Islam's position - or at least that of its representative here, olabowale. He accepts that Christ will return to destroy the anti-Christ, but will also become a follower of Muhammad and a Muslim. This concords with the general Muslim belief that Muhammad was 'greater' than Jesus as God's ultimate representative on earth. If so, the existence of a future anti-Christ personality presents ostensible problems IMHO. Olabowale will do well to honestly answer the following questions: how does one explain the anti-climatic future emergence of a purported arch-foe to Christ rather than the supposed greater personality and office of Muhammad? How come there is an anti-Christ, but no anti-Muhammad? What does Christ - though a 'mere' prophet - still represent that was not assumed and superceded by Muhammad's appearance, thereby warranting the rise of an arch-opponent to Christ and not to Muhammad?

Brother, firstly, was Jesus a christian and do you have any proof that his disciples are same.

Why do you Muslim apologists persist in asking such stupid questions??

Secondly why did he tell them to buy sword in the first place and I wwant to refreshen your memory that when in one the gospels, one of disciples showed him the physical and Jesus said it was ok.

Are two swords enough to defend twelve men? How did Jesus react when Peter used his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane? Think about if - if indeed you are serious about knowing the truth - then you may realise the inadequacies of a literal translation of the said text.

luv2talk,

As I exhorted you before, I do so again: Please put your religion into practise first by giving fellow muslim Misha'al Ibn Abdullah credit for his work, which you have repeatedly pasted here. There's no point telling us how bad our faith is if you cannot practise yours in the simple matter of intellectual honesty!

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch6.7.html

I understand that you 'luv 2 talk', but you should know that actions speak much louder than words. As long as you persist in defrauding your brother muslim, your eternal fate will appear just as precarious, by your own standards, as you claim that ours is.

Peace.

luv2talk,

It might be more honorable (I daresay, even more Islamic) to first give your esteemed muslim brother Misha'al Ibn Abdullah the credit/honor he deserves for his work (rather than robbing him through plagiarism) that you have posted, before moving on to pour scorn Christians and their doctrine on the basis of a treatise that you probably cannot defend. If I asked you, for instance, to expantiate on the Hypisistarians and their beliefs and practises, would you be able to comply?


http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/index.html
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.3.1.html

First, since you are an African, you should know from the African perspective that
brethren means, someone you share bloodline with, eg Cousin, etc. Ibrahim, is not
exclusive to the Children of Israel! (To the one poster who probably do not know what
Children of Israel consists of; It consists all the 12 major tribes of the children of Israel,
the Jew, as a tribe is one of the 12 tribes.)

Olabowale, why does the occurence of the term 'brethren' in the Deuteronomy 18:18 verse have to be defined in terms of a (supposed) African perspective, rather than the immediate context of the verse itself?. Pilgrim1 spelled it out clearly here:

The case has been established that the phrase "from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" points only to people within the Jewish nation, especially when one reads its context in such texts as Deut. 17:15 - 'Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.'

Context, context, context.

before you go off half cocked flinging accusations, You obviously haven't been paying attention The Father's Name is YAHAWAH (YHWH)

The JW corrupted this name by changing it to Je-ho-vah, the letter J does not exist in Hebrew and no ancient hebrews spoke english

have you ever said Hallelu-Vah or Hallelu-Jah? Or do you say HalleluYah? if you've said HalleluYah then you are saying in hebrew Praise Yah, so Who is Yah?

The word Elohim(Gods) is plural for El (God), The word God is simply a title can be for any purpose, for there are many gods in the world today but only One Creator whose Name is YAHAWAH (YHWH)

Adonai again is plural for Adonis(go find out who Adonis in greek mythology was, do some research) This is also a title that can be ascribed to any one or thing, YHWH is above all these things

Some have chosen to pronounce His Name as Yahweh or Yahawah. I'm not going to question anyone's pronounciation of name of YHWH.

In that case you should have little problem with the word Jehovah, since it is a twisted transcription of the tetragrammation. Perhaps this Jehovah-Yahweh debate amongst Christians is a case of much ado about nothing. I think this 'J' consonant in 'Jehovah' was actually pronounced as /j/ or ('y' sound equivalent) in the original Latin script until certain Romance languages (notably the French) deviated from the norm. Thus, it is no surprise to to find that 'Jehovah' was also transcribed as 'Yehowah' in some traditions.

The descendants of Abraham did not come from southern Russia, Poland,Germany,the Baltics etc these are the Jews. Abraham was and African just like you. The Torah Starts with Africa -Gen 2:11-12 Hawilah and Cush which are modern day Sudan and Ethiopia. The white man has brain washed you into thinking you are a gentile
Gen 10:1 NOW this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood.
Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
Gen 10:3 The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath,[fn1] and Togarmah.
Gen 10:4 The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.[fn2]

Gen 10:5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Do you see who the Gentiles are?
Gog and Magog are modern day Russia and it surrounding nations

If this was in response to backslider's remarks then I'm afraid it is faulty for several reasons.
First of all your 'Abraham was an African' submission was hardly established on solid biblical grounds:
1. Genesis 2:10-14 describes the tributaries of a single river that flowed from Eden:

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Obviously this passage tells us the lands traversed by the four tributaries, but it does not exactly establish Eden's relative proximity to those places (and I suppose that this was your intent). The first river Pishon flows around the land of Havilah, which you connect to the Sudan. I'd like to know your basis for that conclusion, for I have not found such consensus in the Bible or in secular literature. The term Havilah occurs again in Genesis 10:29 as a descendant of Shem; and judging from the other names mentioned (especially Ophir and Sheba), it is more likely connected to ancient Arabia rather than Africa. The river Gihon (whose present contemporary is a mystery to scholars, as is Pishon) flows around Cush, (a term often applied to the upper Nile region in the OT), but surely we cannot assume that Eden was in Africa on that basis. Moreover, the footnotes indicate that Cush could possibly refer to southeast Mesopotamia. In addition, the Tigris is associated with Asshur, from which comes Assyria, a non-African location. The Euphrates is also mentioned, which like the Tigris, flows through Mesopotamia. So in the end, we are left with two concrete references to Mesopotamia - hardly a suitable basis for concliding that the Torah began in Africa. Finally we must remember that this passage describes antediluvian topography/geography, i.e. a world before a catastrophic Flood which most likely changed everything drastically!

2. Even if the above passage authoritatively establishes Eden's location in Africa, what would that mean other than the fact that Abraham along with Gog and Magog and the rest of the entire human race is of African stock? This proves nothing!

3. Genesis 11 clearly establishes Abraham's descent from the Semitic line - by and large a nonafrican line -  and we know that he was in Mesopotamia when God called him. Whether by origin or by descent, Abraham was not an African, period.

Secondly, you confined the application of the word 'Gentile' to a rather narrow prism. It is well known that its occurene in the Bible - both OT(Hebrew Bible) and NT -  refers to non-Israelite peoples, be they Hamitic, Japhetic or Semitic. Most modern translations like the NIV simply put the word 'nations' in place of 'Gentiles', especially in the OT. It is a generic reference to non-Israelites, not Japheth's descendants. Or do you really think that in Matt 10:5 Jesus was talking only about faraway Gog and Magog when he sends out his disciples on a missions trip to preach only to the Israelites and not to Gentiles of the Samaritans?

5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.


As for the rest of your post, I leave you with this verse:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed,
Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:5,10

If all you say is true, how do you explain this passage? If no one can bear sin for another under any conditions whatsoever, why does Isaiah tell us of a man who would suffer and die for our sins, under God's will? If indeed human sacrifice is an absolute abomination to God, then why does the prophet Isaiah predict that God would make this man's life a guilt offering?

Shalom!