tricks

bricks

Hi jclord,

Oh well, thanks for that very encouraging word. It's really tough living out one's faith in Europe, not just in Sweden. One week it's one controversy or the other aimed at targeting Christians; another week it's yet something else to the same ends. Presently, the homosexual debate seems to be waning here, and they're looking for the next excuse to be anti-God. I'm not the only believer who tries to make a mark - there are few others I've met who are far more involved and know the faith better than I do. On a positive note, the pressures have helped to bring out the best in us. To God be all the praise.


M.

nuru:

Allah is the name of the Supreme Diety in Arabic. Jesus spoke aramaic and i can still remember that in the Bible that i read as a lad, the sentence ''Elli, Elli lamosabaqtani '' which means My God My God, why have you forsaken me'' used to be prominent in the Bible class. Dont know if its still there . Jesus called God, Elli and not any other name. Now look at it, arabic and aramaic are both semitic languages and if you compare Allah with Elli, you would see that Jesus practically called God by the name Allah. Why wont any other person that claim to believe in Jesus.

The verse in the Bible you're asking about is [Matt. 27:46] - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Nuru: "Jesus called God, Elli and not any other name."

As to the question of Jesus calling God by any other name, the Bible shows indeed that He called God "Father" - "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." [Matt. 26:42]; He called God "Abba" as well - "And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." [Mark 14:36]. More than any other name by which Jesus addressed God, He called Him "Father". Arabs - whether Christians or Moslems - commonly use "Allah" in speaking of God; yet we know that in their concept and understanding, they are not referring to the same "Allah" or God. Why? The true test of our worship to God is the name by which we call Him: it is only Christians (Arabs, Aramaic, English or whatever) who know and address God as "Father" - and that is the very name that Jesus Christ asked us to recognise in our praying to God:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." [Matt. 6:9]

Just calling God the Supreme Deity does not establish saving faith in a person's life. The "Allah" of the Islamic faith is not the "Father" and therefore not the same as the "God" whom Jesus came to preach. We know salvation and worship only when we confess that God is our Father by faith in Jesus Christ -

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." [John 4:23]


M.

shoe

hue

Just Praying, or...??

It seems to me that kismat was asking a two-fold question from the onset: the why and how of Christian prayer. She asked: "Why do Christians kneel when they pray; and...what does the bible say on how to pray to God!" Unfortunately, her (or his..?) subsequent posts left me wondering if she was seeking answers or just wanting to amuse herself with sarcasm - and I sincerely hope not.

Why do Christians kneel to pray?

Christians are not the only ones who kneel to pray - Moslems, Jews and a few other people of other faiths assume this posture in praying. In the Bible, we find indeed that Christians knelt in praying, and a few verses are helpful to point this out:

    "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," [Eph. 3:14]     

    "And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all." [Acts 20:36]

    "But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said,
     Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up." [Act 9:40]

Back in Old Testament times, the practice of kneeling to pray or worship was already established: "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker." [Psa 95:6]. Among other things, kneeling was a sign of humility in the presence of Majesty.

In answer to the question of who introduced the concept of kneeling, we can say that it was not a human notion; rather, it was a divine injunction. The apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 to remind us:

    "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall
     confess to God." [Rom 14:11].

Consequently, was it recorded anywhere that Jesus ever knelt to pray? I believe the Bible says so: "And he [that is, Jesus Christ] was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed" [Luk 22:41].

Secondly, kneeling is not the only position Christians assume in praying. (a) A believer can pray with hands lifted up: "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." [1Ti 2:8]; (b) they also stand to pray: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." [Mar 11:25]. I could go on to show several others in the Bible were questions like these are answered. The point is that Christians are not stereotyped nor limited to just one posture in prayer.

Besides, the value of prayer and worship is not so much how you stand, sit or kneel to do so. God looks upon the heart more than anything else, and He desires that we have a sanctified conscience when we appraoch Him in faith. Until we recognise the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, prayer would remain a futile exercise.

Warmly, 
M.

Divine authorship of the Bible

kismat:

Depends.who wrote the bible?

If the context of the enquiry seems to suggest that the Bible is not the Word of God, then perhaps I could make some contributions. There is a difference between writing a book or document and inspiring it. I've not come across a text that says that God specifically wrote the Bible (in the sense of having literally penned down the words in ink and paper); but it makes a solid claim that the Bible was[b] inspired [/b] by God (that is, He inspired the Bible to be written). We see this in 2 Tim. 3:16:

    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Divine inspiration is not the same as men writing from human ideas, and it is in context of this the apostle Peter reminds us that holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke God's word to us:

    "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they
     were moved by the Holy Ghost." [see 2 Pet. 1:20-21].

This is what gives the Bible its stamp of divine authorship, and that's why I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and not the mere word of men.

M.

My dear Nuru, I sincerely believe that God the Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe is One and Eternal - and He is not Allah! My confession of God does not derive from the Islamic deity. Why? There is only One Eternal, loving God who loves me without measure as to provide redemption in the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever
believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

I do not deride Islam just because I don't believe in it; but my faith is anchored in the God of love revealed in the Bible - and Christianity really makes sense only by faith in Jesus Christ.

M.

"We" "Us" "Our"...and Allah

nuru:

The use of we by Allah in the Quran is an expression of majesty and not pluralism.
Example is when a President is talking, even when it is a fact that he is the one that has taken
a decision, he would usually come out and say ' Our Government has decided '. That is not say
there are two Presidents in the country. This true for all languages of the world. So contrary to
your assertion, the Quran is clear on the fact that there is only one Allah.

The use of analogies is appreciated; but even when a President says 'Our Government', it is clear that he would not be speaking alone but in concert with several others besides him. Only in dictatorial systems of governance do leaders stand alone, and in such they would say, "I have decided on this and that..," rather than "Our Government has decided." Divine realities often cannot be illustrated sufficiently with temporal things.

When you stated that, "The use of we by Allah in the Quran is an expression of majesty...," it seems you agree, at least, that Allah was indeed the speaker in those verses. Assuming that Allah speaks as a single being, how should we understand his direct use of the plural pronoun "Us" when he says, "...Us (alone) did they serve" [Sura 21:73]? At face value, it is difficult to connect with this when Allah alone is to be worshipped and served, and there should be no "Us" about Allah in Islam.

Please note carefully what I'm pointing out: someone takes it upon himself to call my faith "laughable and ridiculous" simply because he could not understand the Trinity; I only asked if he would do the same at Islam if he only knew that Allah also spoke as "We", "Us", and "Our". You explained (while admitting it was Allah speaking as "We", that it was 'an expression of majesty and not pluralism.' Granted. The same could be said about the Trinity, which is not 'plural Gods' or 'three Gods.' It is one God who has revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is not just a New Testament doctrine of Christianity. Infact, in the beginning, we hear this same God saying:

"Let Us make man in our image and after our likeness." [Gen. 1:26].

This does not mean that there were three Gods in that verse, and one needs only read carefully the other scriptures in the Bible that consistently bear out the unity of the ONE and only true God.

The Qur'an states that Allah alone is the creator and none can be associated with him. While I refrain from interpreting the Qur'an for Moslems and respect whatever views they hold of their faith, I did not make any categorical "assertions" that there were more than one Allah. I believe the Bible proclaims only ONE true and living God in both the Old and New Testaments, and the doctrine of the Trinity is not ridiculous in as much as Moslems view the "We", "Us" and "Our" of Allah as simply pointing to majesty.

M.

Now, concerning the government or Kingdom, we are told that the prophecy was not about Jesus because He "did not found government" (AbduRahman's quote: "This is not about Jesus, he did not found government"). Really? It all depends on what type of kingdom Jesus meant when He spoke about it.

Hear Him:

    "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21).

    And again: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." [John 18:36]. 

From these scriptures, it is clear that the Kingdom was not to be understood in literal form as other kingdoms: it was not a physical, politico-religious dynasty or any of such. If anyone would see the Kingdom that Jesus came to preach, there would have to be a spiritual rebirth that would radically affect the heart of sinful man. This is precisely what salvation is about: being born again.

    "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,
      he cannot see the kingdom of God." [John 3:3].

Whatever meanings anyone would derive from the term "Kingdom of God", it certainly would not point to Islam, as AbduRahman supposes. It was not a question of peace by the sword ("...then would my servants fight," said Jesus); rather, it was one that we have in our hearts for the mercy and grace provided for everyone through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In effect it says: "Let God rule in your heart by the power of the Holy Spirit." This comes only by faith in the Son of God.

Many blessings,

M.

AbduRahman's Isaiah Prophecy...food for thought.

AbduRhaman:
  6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
                  And the government will rest on His shoulders;
                  And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                  Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

           As Jesus, also Mohammed (puh) were given to us, although in case of Jesus focus is much more in his 
          birth. Government will rest on shoulders of Mohammed, and on Him who send Mohammed and ordered
          him to act and to do as he did, in founding of government. This is not about Jesus, he did not found
          government. "Wonderful Counsellor" describes amazing Quran and numerous hadiths, over two million
          of them, and amount of information on those for nearly all aspects of life. "Mighty God" and "Eternal
          Father" describes God of Islam, Allah (not Jesus-loves-you-all-god), from Whom Mohammed (and also
          Jesus) preached about, and how Allah will be eternity and will not change a bit . Prince of Peace is about
          Allah, Islam and Mohammed together, their common affect on world and about peace they brought.


The Prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7 is well understood by Christians to point to just one Person - the Lord Jesus Christ. However, AbduRahman seems to force an unwarranted interpretation into the text to include a second person, and thereby defeats his own point.

1. First, he fails to see that the text refers to just one Person; at least, that shouldn't be difficult to see if only close attention was paid to simple English. The child to be born was still the same son to be given to us; and the rest of that verse was speaking about Him.

                And the government will rest on His shoulders;
                And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Notice, the text did not say that the government would rest on 'their' shoulders, but on 'His' shoulders! Likewise, 'His' name (referring to just one Person) - not 'their' names. So, the prophecy does not point to Mohammed and 'the amazing Qur'an and the numerous hadiths, over two million of them,' blah, blah, blah. It's amazing that AbduRahman attempts to squeeze out the main character of the prophecy ("This is not about Jesus," so he could introduce his ideas through the back door.

2. In quoting Biblical texts, one should seriously ask if AbduRahman has any shred of belief in the Bible, let alone try to "interpret" or explain it. If he does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what's the point trying to quote from and interpret it in such a way as to try to "prove" that Isaiah was all about Islam?

3. We are told in verse 7 of the same prophecy that, "Of the increase of his (that is, Christ's) government and peace there will be no end. He (again, Jesus Christ) will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom,..." Two things come to mind here: (a) David's throne, and (b) the government or Kingdom.

AbduRahman interprets the term 'David's throne' this way: [..."reigned from David’s throne" (throne of religions of Abraham) is Islam that spread through THREE continents..."]. AbduRahman may not believe in the Bible, but he should note that David was not an Arab - he was a Jew! Isaiah's prophecy has got nothing to do with Islam. With all respect, we note that the prophet Mohammed was an Arab, and so could not have been qualified to legally "reign on David's throne and over his kingdom." Moreover, Jesus Himself reiterated that 'salvation is of (or from) the Jews' (John 4:22) - not from the Arabs. Thus, because Jesus was a Jew and of the lineage of David, He was the appointed One to reign on David's throne. This was precisely what people called Jesus in the first century:

       "And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?" [Mat 12:23]
       "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give
        unto him the throne of his father David." [Luke 1:32]
       "And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me." [Luke 18:38]
       "Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of
        Bethlehem, where David was?" [John 7:42]

In my next post I'll treat the meaning of the Kingdom or government, just so that I don't out-do myself in this one.    However, this just shows that any forceful interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy (or any other Biblical text for that matter) to mean the rise and progress of Islam is simply not justified.

M.

When I read the Qur'an and come to texts expressed in the third person plural voice (that is, "We", "Us", etc.)...

Aarrgghh...!! What was I thinking?! That was supposed to read "first person plural."
The error is regretted.


M.

AIF's question:.

"Allah - I mean the unseen being Muslims worship
God - I mean the unseen being Christians worship
Are they the same?"

Allah whom Muslims worship is not the same as the God of the Christian faith. It is true that Arabic Christians and people of some other languages call God by the name Allah; but none of these Christians would be ascribing worship to the prophet Muhammed's deity. Why?

They do not hold to the same confession of their identity:

Christianity confesses faith in God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:

(Mat 3:17) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

(1Pe 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.


Islam denies that Allah has a son but sees Jesus only as a prophet or apostle:

[Sura 21.26] And they say: The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants.
[Sura 4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

How then are they the same God? I know they are not the same - and most muslims will tell you that Allah is not the same as the Christian God. Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians use "Allah" to speak of the God that they believe in; however, that there is a common name for "God" does not mean that they are worshipping the same God. In the same vein, Olodumare, and the respected deities of other groups cannot be the same God - do they confess the same "Son" Jesus Christ?

Warmly,
M

Some Thoughts on the Trinity.

One difficulty in the Christian faith that some Moslems object to is the doctrine of the Trinity - the belief that there are three divine Persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. How could there be only one God if there are three in One, many people wonder. I admit the difficulty indeed, and amicably ask that we consider if Christianity is at all the only faith that stands accused of worshipping God as having revealed Himself in plurality.

When I read the Qur'an and come to texts expressed in the third person plural voice (that is, "We", "Us", etc.) I'm convinced that the Moslem God was speaking as a plurality. Check out the follwing:

Firstly, the Qur'an states that there is no god besides Allah and that he alone is God. [Sura 21.25]. I take this as a monotheistic confession of the existence of only one being recognized as God in the Islamic faith. I'm not seeking to get into anyone's bad books, but if the assertion above were true, who else was besides Allah and acting alongside him in matters which were supposed to be handled only by God? (Please note the emboldened plural pronouns "We", "Us", etc.).

1. Creation: who created the heavens and the earth - one Allah alone or several deities along with him?

[21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?
[51.47] And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things
ample.
[51.48] And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out.
[51.49] And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.


2. Praise: How many are to be praised - one Allah or several besides him?

[21.79] So We made Sulaiman to understand it; and to each one We gave wisdom and knowledge; and We made the mountains, and the birds to celebrate Our praise with Dawood; and We were the doers.


3. Prayers: Who answers prayers - Allah alone or several besides him?

[21.76] And Nuh, when he cried aforetime, so We answered him, and delivered him and his followers from the great calamity.

4. Divine Service: How many are to be served - one Allah or several besides him?

[21.73] And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve;

The point is that these and several other texts in the Qur'an show clearly that Allah was speaking in a plural voice as though there were more than a singular entity - it doesn't take much to see that a plurality speaks in the Qur'an as if they were divine beings themselves, acting in the same capacity as Allah, and I trust that most Moslems are sincere enough to admit this.

So, if it is difficult to reconcile the plural personalities of Allah in Islam with the monotheistic claims they make, why should anyone want to laugh at the confession of the Trinity in Christianity? Christians who know their God are not ashamed of confessing the Trinity - I certainly am not! If anyone does not understand the Trinity, that in itself is not ridiculous or laughable...until those who laugh will do so at the Qur'an where Allah speaks as "WE", "US" and "OUR"!

M.

Ajisafe:


Even elementary school students know that three persons are not one and vice versa. Your assertion is ridiculous and; also, your belief is laughable. How can I comprehend an illusion?

Ridiculous..?? Laughable...?? Would you laugh at the Islamic faith if you found out that Allah many times did not speak as a singular entity, but rather as a plural entity? Slow down just a bit, it seems that you haven't checked out the facts and there's no need to sound derisive.

Some Thoughts on AbduRahman's Isaiah Prophecy:

I should not be tedious to anyone on this subject, especially as a response to posts made earlier. However, it has often been said many times that Christians have no answers to issues raised by some Moslems conducting "research" of sorts. The funny thing is that Abdulrahman's excessively long posts said next to nothing, especially when clarity is lacking. Apart from taking Bible verses out of contexts and arriving at completely different meanings from what the texts say, he leaves many of us wondering what he was all about in the first place, not to even mention the basic questions of salvation and faith in the true God. His very drab and unconnected story-telling in his first opening paragraphs - that's another matter. I do not mean to say anything derogatory, but the whole exercise leads me to ask just one question: Was Abdulrahman trying to prove that the claims of Biblical Christianity were not true? If Isaiah prophesied two opposing faiths (Christianity and Islam), where does that leave you and me in God's plan of salvation, because we all know that these two faiths have no connections? I'm still scratching my head for his answers.

M.

donnie: "Paul was not talking about physical infirmity there brother...He was troubled by those who are refered to as 'Judaisers'... The phrase, 'infirmity of the flesh' is like saying, 'pain in the neck' like we have it today. No balancing brother!"

There again, your choice to be extreme. Meanwhile, I've checked with Bible study materials and the phrase in Gal. 4:13 (infirmity of the flesh) was not an idiomatic expression like 'pain in the neck' nor does it point to some "judaisers"... it means just precisely as it reads - infirmity of the flesh, and most would agree that is its meaning in the text (see the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vincent's Word Study, and Robertson's Word Pictures, to name a few). It is the same word and meaning in Luke 5:15 and I Tim.5:23 (and in the latter, Paul most definitely was pointing to the fact that Timothy suffered some physical illness of the body). However, infirmity in itself elsewhere in the New Testament does not always refer to sickness of the body: I know that for sure (see for example Rom.6:19, which would indicate a weakness of understanding to grasp the depths of Paul's discourse; and Rom.8:26, in context pointing to weakness in spiritual things, and that's where the Spirit comes to our help).

Romans 8:11. I do believe in divine health and have been enjoying that grace from God. But please read the other texts in my last post. I've known people who have prayed the prayer of faith for healing, but nothing seemed to change; rather, a few were more challenged and used more effectively in their witnessing and ministry. Unfortunately, the idea that if a person has eternal life, he or she cannot be sick has left some disillusioned and fearing that they did not have it (eternal life) afterall. God's word teaches that salvation is obtained by believing in the heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and confessing the same with the mouth (Rom. 10:8-13). I don't think that a person who has eternal life automatically becomes superhuman and therefore could never be affected by illness. Again, I'm not advocating that believers must be sick; my point is that, as long as we are in this mortal flesh, we are subject to imperfections and might sometimes be exposed to illnesses. We can be healed, thank God for that. But something is wrong with sweeping statements like the one you made earlier: "That is what etenal life is all about... you cannot recieve that life and remain sick or broke." Tell that to Paul or Timothy, and they would teach you the mind of Christ, dear brother.

With much love.
M.

donnie's post:
That is what etenal life is all about... you cannot recieve that life and remain sick or broke. This is the very life and nature of God!

I've heard this many times and similar lines, and this is just one of those extremes that keeps amazing me. Does it then mean that any believer who ever is sick did not receive eternal life? I wonder why some of the faithful servants of Christ actually experienced illnesses and hard finances.

Paul: (Gal 4:13) Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.

Paul: (2Ti 4:20) Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

Concerning Timothy: (1Ti 5:23) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

..and Paul: (Phi 4:12) I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

Please note that I'm not advocating that believers must be sick and poor; but I can't agree with sweeping statements that you cannot be sick because you have received eternal life. Is there someone out there who cares for balance on this subject?

Joftech,
Many thanks, but there was nothing in my post to sound like I was being carried away. I just wondered what folks in Naija think about the DC of Dan Brown.

It's interesting that opinions make us who we are. However, I wonder if anyone agrees that opinions do not stand with God - no matter how plausible they might sound? Is T. B. Joshua a man of God or not? Some would be quick to quote Matt.7:1 ("judge not"; but while that has it's value in context of the verses following, I do believe the Lord Jesus Himself asks us to judge. Hear Him: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24). Too many times we are asked to accept a person as a man of God on the basis of outward improvements like dress codes and oratory powers of grammar. Okay, it's human to be nice and not controversial... but, I'm not too concerned with personalities; rather, if a man does not have God's faithful word, there would be a big question mark as to whether or not that man is truly God's servant.

By the way, how many people have heard of Dan Brown's novel, 'The Da Vinci Code'? Comments?