₦airaland Forum

belloti:
Surprisingly, Among these generations of human being, some group just woke up one day and say one of these messengers is God himself. He never said so and even if he said so no right thinking person should believe him.

I am not surprised at all - this is how Muslims sadly close their minds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; so that, even if He actually said he was God Himself, and you can as well refuse to believe Him. I can guarantee you one thing for sure: Jesus Christ actually said so! Whether or not you believe Him does not affect what He called Himself:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." - Rev. 22:12-13.

I wonder how it is that no right thinking Muslim scholar has debated the Book of Revelation as much as they have attempted to do so with the Gospels. And yet, it is in that book that Jesus calls Himself the very title that God uses for Himself in Isaiah's prophecy:

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Little wonder again that the Qur'an fails to mention a word about the prophet Isaiah - and yet Jesus recognised Isaiah as a prophet and quoted from the latter's book in Luke 4:18 (compare Isaiah 61:1).

Jesus indeed "said so" - and what is more, He claimed worship for Himself in precisely the same way that the Father is worshipped:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5:23).

It is up to you to keep rejecting what Jesus said; but ponder on His warning -

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" - John 8:24. And I trust you will not wait for that to happen to you and find the truth only too late!

belloti:
If the Holy prophet muhammadu (SAW) said he was god, i wouldnt have worshipped him, because i knew human being can never be God. If he said he was the son of God, i would probably take it in figurative term.

Hardly surprising that you can take a very polarised acquiescence towards Muhammad, even though it is open fact that he was a sinner. So, if the Arabian 'sinner' said he was 'the son of god', it only makes sense that you, at least, give him some concession to be heard and believed, albeit in "figurative term", yes?

Sad. . . really sad how you could be acidic about Jesus in your opening paragraph, and yet be amicably condescending with Muhammad. In other words, Jesus stands to be rejected by you if He said He was the Son of God (John 10:36); but if Muhammad had said the very same thing, then you applaud him.

When you take such a polarised position in the hope of "proving" why Christianity is Wrong, you only end up hurting yourself further than when you started. Muhammad will not save you, and if you will receive this, open your heart to Jesus Christ - He truly saves from sin and divine judgement. . . because He indeed said He is the Son of God regardless of your denial.

Oga belloti,

I may not have gone through each rejoinder to your original post, and I hope in good faith many readers would forgive me where I might be repeating someone else's post. A few interesting lines in yours drew my attention, and here is my input:

belloti:
Surprisingly, Among these generations of human being, some group just woke up one day and say one of these messengers is God himself. He never said so and even if he said so no right thinking person should believe him.

Wrong, my dear. In the first place, "some group" did NOT "just woke up one day and say one of these messengers is God himself." You only came to that conclusion when you ignore, reject and categorically deny the inspired message of the earlier prophets, some of which you had named - including Solomon, David, and Moses. Infact, the latter two of these prophets long spoke of the Messiah as divine even before He was born.

The second thing is that you have categorically exposed the real mindset of a Muslim - which is simply reconfigured to deny the declarations of the very Qur'an he 'believes' in, while supposing he truly holds on to it. I have often challenged the idea that Muslims believe at all in all the previous prophets before Muhammad - because they truly do NOT. If you believe in David as a prophet according to what the Qur'an declares, are you willing to believe in his prophetic message as well? This is what *Allah* says in the Qur'an about David: ". . . and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms." (Q.17 vs.55).

Belloti, have you read the Psalms of David - do you really believe what the Qur'an says that *Allah* gave the Psalms to David? Long before Muhammad was born, David himself wrote in the second Psalm these words about the Messiah:

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in [size=14pt]him[/size]" (Psa. 2:12).

That verse has remained unchanged since the day it was penned, urging people to recognise the One who is called "the Son" and also to "put their trust in him!"

You can only deny this Psalm and several others penned by the very same David spoken of in the Qur'an - and in so doing, effectively expose yourself as one who truly does not believe what the Qur'an says. I know Muslims have been wired to think that the Psalms of David have been corrupted - in which case, I appeal to their intellectual sincerity to provide answers to the following:

>> the exact date such a corruption occured

>> who actually made the corruption

>> what did the original Psalms say before the corruption occured?

If there are no factual evidence, on what basis do you establish the false accusation that the Bible has been corrupted so that David said what he did not say about the Messiah in Psa. 2:12?

Mark (at least, historians are persuaded it is)?

How many disciples were present in the upper room on the day of Pentecost?

Thank you omot208.

However, let me correct a few impressions where you might have read me wrongly.

omot208:
u contradict urslef at the beginning of that paragraph with the end of it:

[color=#990000]In divine matters of creation, worship and prayer, one cannot speak of the true God in mere reductionistic, human terms - and both the French and the Yoruba will tell you exactly that!

The fact that they cannot speak of divine matters in human terms explains their attempt to make them divine - they pluralize it..

I wasn't speaking merely of "divine matters" as you misread me, but about the true God Himself ("one cannot speak of the true God in mere reductionistic, human terms" was my statement)! Often, people are fond of reducing God Himself to the level of mere man. If that still sounded like contradicting myself, think of it in terms of what is God's prerogative as against man's perculiarities, and ask yourself if the cultures of the French and Yoruba people see themselves as "God".

Second, I did not suppose for a moment that you were a Muslim - I know one when I read one. My point was that among the several cultures of the world (including your examples of the Yoruba and the French), the constructs of various languages just simply do not reflect the divine afflatus, and thus fail to capture the real essence of Who God actually is in Himself. Hence, my offer of the examples from the Qur'an to that effect.

Then. . .

omot208:
i do not deny Jesus' existence or his divinity. I just do not agree that he be made equal with the Almighty God whom he himself called 'Father'.

Precisely my point - accepting a statement of scripture and in the same breath outrightly rejecting it is quite unhealthy. How do you suppose for one moment that Jesus is "divine" and yet less than the Almighty God? That Jesus is "divine" simply means He is "God" - and that is what John 1:1 declares.

omot208:
i explained this same thing in a previous post in which I quoted the verse where Jesus prays for his Apostles to be one just as he and his Father are one. He is God in that context because he is one with God in terms of purpose, vision and so on.

Christians everywhere have the same purpose, vision and whatever else as Christ Himself - but that does not make us "God in that context." Before the birth of Jesus, He was God Himself, and it is not ministry that made Him "God" in any context - rather, it is who He is and ever has been in Himself. Let me offer you just one perspective on this. The apostle Paul by revelation penned this line:

"Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (I Cor. 2:8 ).

We only need ask, "Who is the Lord of glory?" If we turn for a moment to Psalm 24:7-10, is He any different from the One who is there described?

"Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah" (vs. 10).

Israel's "King of glory" and "The LORD of hosts" is the very same One called in Isaiah's prophecy: "the LORD of hosts", 'the first and the last' (Isa. 44:6 and 48:12) - and that is the very title Jesus used for Himself in Rev. 1:11 & 17; 2:8 and 22:13. Many people have issues with the Book of Revelation - granted. But no one reading those verses in their context will fail to see that it was Jesus Himself speaking in those verses and calling Himself "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" - unless they would like to be so bold-faced as to deny Christ Himself!

I enjoyed your response; but it makes me wonder how anyone could affirm the deity (same connotation as "divinity" of Jesus Christ and yet deny that He is the very same God that the prophets worshipped in the Old Testament who has been revealed in the New. If indeed Jesus was God and yet less than "Almighty God", that would indeed be claiming He is neither God nor mighty - a very sad denial that ignores the prophets inspired confession of Him in Isaiah 9:6.

omot208:
the Yoruba and the French use plural address forms for strangers and elders, does this make them plural? it certainly doesn't. it only indicates respect.

In divine matters of creation, worship and prayer, one cannot speak of the true God in mere reductionistic, human terms - and both the French and the Yoruba will tell you exactly that! Let me turn your attention for a moment on the Qur'an: If it is merely a matter of "respect" that the plural pronouns in the Qur'an were used as indicative of *Allah*, then it says only one thing: the deity worshipped in Islam is NOT the Creator nor God - and I say this "respectfully." You only need to pick up the Qur'an and read it - and there you find several (not a 'singular', but plural) beings claiming that they "created" man and indeed everything - and do you call this merely a term for "respect"? Sample these:

Q.23 vs.12
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth"

Q.21 vs.35
"Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must ye return."

Q.21 vs.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 last line of this verse is translated by Pickthal as: "and they were worshippers of [size=14pt]Us[/size] (alone)." - did you catch that? So the Qur'an admits that Islam is surreptitiously polytheism cleverly disguised!!).

Q.51 vs.47-49
"And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. . .And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out. . . And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction."

I could give you hundreds of verses in the Qur'an why this idea of mere "respect" does NOT hold true at all in matters of divine afflatus. But I come now to a very interesting point in your post:

omot208:
the Word is Jesus Christ, not God. he existed in spirit form before he was made flesh and sent to the earth to dwell among us. his 'oneness' with God is only symbolic, not physical. that is the way the verse is meant to be understood.

How you managed to accept that "the Word is Jesus Christ" and yet reject that statement by saying that the very same Word is "not God" is really sad. As clear as daylight, the verse reads in full: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. More than a mere "symbolic" view of the deity of Jesus Christ, the Scriptures very strongly show that Jesus is God indeed. To accept a verse and then deny it in one breath is a very serious matter - think upon the implication of your arguments: such a confession is effectively denying the Lord Himself!

Anyhow, you may feel strongly about your beliefs - but it's hard to see how one can stand on good grounds if accepting and denying the very Scriptures they argue from. I wish you well - and well, Happy New Year!

Hi Omot208,

It's easy to strongly disagree with, disparage and disapprove of something that doesn't square with your passion - I've been there before, so I can understand your persuasions. Some concern, though, is that you have clearly misconstrued ideas that easily flaw your arguments. I offer a few:

omot208:
the Hebrew thought God had a female side that's why their word for Him is plural.
for them to accpet Jesus as His son, they needed a female side.

No credible Hebrew ever thought this - and in any case, that's NOT 'why their word for Him is plural'. Anyone can sell you that idea, and if you're one of those looking for just about any excuse for the views you hold, there you have it!

Then again, you will find that rather than 'for them to accept Jesus as His son', they rejected Him outrightly as such! Why then would they have delivered Him up to be crucified if they actually were eager to accept Him as the very Son of God? The very confession that Jesus gave of Himself as "the Son of God" was the grounds upon which they judged Him guilty to be put to death! Did you miss this in the collective testimony of the New Testament? Here -

Mark 14:61-64
"But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."

Luke 22:70-71
"Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

John 19:6-7
"When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

You see clearly that, rather than looking for grounds to accept Jesus as the Son of God, they aciduously sought the very opposite - 'evidences' to reject Him as such! You may not believe the New Testament attestation to this - but you need merely ask a true Hebraic Jew if he 'needed a female side' to God in order to accept Jesus! If you're making informed statements, you need hardly have run away away with that sad tale earlier.

Jesus is God. That is a pivotal statement of the Christian faith - and that is precisely the point of reference for any discussion about who He is. The problem, however, is that our Muslim friends find that statement unacceptable for the simple reason that the Qur'an denies it - because Islam is antithetical to anything "Christian". May I remind them that not even Muhammad was "logical", nor did he for one instant appeal to "clear LOGIC"; but he rather appealed to what he called "faith". If he actually was "logical", he would not have closed his eyes to the clear Biblical statements that declare the deity of Jesus Christ, such as John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6.

And if Islam appeals more to logic than to faith, may I ask why the Qur'an still declares a polytheistic *Allah* for worship to Muslims, and not the actual monotheistic deity it purports to preach? We have asked this question dozens of times and yet not one "logical" answer has been proffered by Muslims as to how many *'Allah's* are worshipped by Muhammad's followers. When the Islamic *Allah* proclaims, "We created man", how many creators was Muhammad preaching? And how "LOGICAL" was that?

Jesus is who He claimed He is, as we find it in the Bible.

@Bobby,

The same thing you're saying and repeating, but not really helping your arguments.

Bobbyaf:
How would you know that? Are you an expert in translating from the original. If you have a problem with the NEB then how do you explain what the French bible says

First, I never claimed that I'm an expert in translating from the original. Second, I thought you'd even offer what the original says, but instead you only weaken your arguments all the more by making recourse to the paraphrased versions of the NEB and French Bible. There are lots of Bible helps available, and if you can afford a good one, look at the text in the Greek original and see what the NEB and the French Bible have done. It's simple - the translators have interpolated into that text what the original doesn't say at all. Unless, you'd want to come back claiming that French was the original language of the New Testament.

Bobbyaf:
Clear as crystal. What you thought was a typical Sunday morning gathering, turned out to be what we would refer to as a Saturday night's gathering, or after sunset gathering.

Fascinating. You could agree with the French Bible and NEB and yet choose not to follow what you read in them. That's simply what I can't get in your arguments. If the NEB and French Bible are accurate and help your argument, why then doesn't your group gather in the same fashion on Saturday nights??

Bobbyaf:
I am not too certain what you're getting at here. Care to expand?

If the first day of the week happens to be the seventh day of the week according to your reckoning, then the seventh day shouldn't actually be the seventh day by the same reckoning. You can't have both the seventh and first day translating into the same day. This is what the NEB and the French Bible haven't explained to you, and one should be careful to take a so-called 'translation' all in if the said translation or version carries just the translators thoughts, rather than what the texts say. This is what happened in the case of the Living Bible which was withdrawn because it failed to faithfully deliver what the Bible actually says in many texts.

Bobbyaf:
I didn't say that at all. I was only pointing out what happened in Acts 20:7-12

How do you stop at 'only pointing out' something as correct and yet choose to do something differently in practice? If the NEB was correct in its translation of a "Saturday night," one would expect that those following the NEB should do what it says - yes?

Bobbyaf:
We don't gather on a Saturday night. We gather in the day.

So then, the NEB and French Bible (FB) are wrong - and you have another version/translation that warrants your practice differently from the NEB/FB's Saturday night?

Bobbyaf:
So weren't Acts 20:7-12 and 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, being the most used texts by you, addressed by me before, and just now? These are the texts that all advocates of a Sunday-keeping early church use as so-call proof.

So, what's wrong with using a few texts, even more so? If the texts say "first day of the week," and not "Saturday nights," my question was simply asking to point out what was wrong with the texts.

Bobbyaf:
But as I have revealed in more than one occasions, those texts have been grossly mis-understood.

By who - the NEB and French Bible translators who are interpolating their own thoughts into the Bible where it does not say that at all??

Bobbyaf:
You cannot read into a passage what you think it should be saying.

Glad to read that from you - and I sincerely wished you had heeded that before making recourse to translations that did the very same thing that you are now condemning.

Meanwhile, these were the questions that I raised which have not been addressed at all:

m4malik:
Now with the Sunday issue,

(1) What do you think God is going to do to those Christians who worship Him on Sunday, the first day of the week?

(2) What do you think God will do to those Christians who gathered for worship on the first day of the week as in Acts 20:7?

(3) And what did God do to John who was in Spirit on the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10) - what is the 'Lord's Day' there?

@Bobby,

You hardly made any point in needlessly repeating yourself. Scripture is clear enough, and to be honest with you, I really don't know what the NEB translators had in mind by interpolating their own thoughts into a text where it never read what they put there. Think about it for a moment: you often argue for the seventh day; and if one is to go by your reckoning, then the seventh day of the week should not really be the seventh day!

Meanwhile, are you saying that in your assembly, your Christian meetings are held on Saturday nights? I don't see what sense you're making from the "proof" that NEB suggests, which in actual fact is no proof at all of what the text says. I don't have any problem with your group gathering for worship on Saturday nights, but the NEB is not saying what the text in Acts 20:7 says.

And for the umpteenth time, I observe that no responses have been forthcoming from you with regards to the questions I raised about Christians gathering on the first day of the week. I take it then that you won't be bothered with that as you probably have nothing to say thereto.

All the same, good to read about what you think the Scripture says about the seventh and first days of the week. It's just untenable to misconstrue the one for the other as long as the Bible does not mix them up.

Dear Olabowale,

Nice to read from you again. However, I need hardly respond to your rejoinder just above; but for the mere reason that you had read me completely out of context and missed the point by many miles, I'll oblige you a few corrections.

olabowale:
I was going to response to TayoD's declaration that you had answered Bab's core questions, by your personal opinion of what each of the verses that you quotad mean. My brother TayoD, if you believe that m4malik did a good job, then here and now, I tell you that I have a Bridge in New York City to sell and you will be a perfect buyer at meager sum of 50,000,000 USD cash to me. When you are ready to pay up let me know. By the way that is a New York saying that one is gguillibe.

First, those are not my 'personal opinion' of what each of the verses mean in response to Babs787; and it would be just great to see what is your own understanding (or personal opinion) of the verses. When you go through the Bible, you'll see how they connect and what they point to, and I'm not in the least interested in long drawn-out debates of choosy denials of Biblical texts. My response was aptly pointing out to Babs that his fundamental enquiry as to Jesus being sent to the whole world meets with a resounding "yes" - both from Biblical prophecy and fulfillment.

olabowale:
You quoted Prophet Muhammad (AS) to show that no one is without sin. However the truth is that (AS) stated that three groups are excused from Sins; The young before puberty, the one who is mentally sick and the one who is uncoscious like in the state of awareness, eg, asleep or in coma. (AS) did not say anywhere in his hadith and it is not recorded in the Qur'an that a person is born with sin because of the sin of Adam

So, where did I state that a person is born with sin because of the sin of Adam? Rather, two statements in my earlier reply are:

(a) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24).

(b) "Even in Islam, there's a belief that every human being that comes into the world is tainted by sin" (not born with sin); and then I referenced statements attributed to Muhammad and Ayatollah Khomeini to underscore that Islamic belief. In any case, the problem really isn't mine; and if you have any issues with that, then I guess you'd have to take Muhammad to task on his statement that "Satan touches every child when it is born".

olabowale:
Adam repented and his Creator accepted his repentance. You will read this in Suratul Baqarah. As to the touch of Shaitan, the accursed, it shows that the devil starts his evil deeds on human being from the time of birth.

So, you're not denying then that Muhammad made the statement I referenced as to Satan touching every child when it is born? Good to know.

olabowale:
If every child were to be born with an original sin, then a child that died at birth will go to hell fire without any doubt because there would not have been any repentance or as per your argument the washing away of that sin by the blood of Jesus. That child would not have confessed. If on the other hand, a small child who was being nursed by the mother bit the mother while being nursed or do other discomforting action, all of these while still a babe, and the child dies, as per your argument, the child would be an inmate of hell.

Quaint that you attribute the idea that 'every child were to be born with an original sin' to me, when in fact you just stated that "the devil starts his evil deeds on human being from the time of birth." Now, how do you reconcile your ideas that the devil starts his evil deeds at the time of birth, and yet excuse some classes of people from that evil deed so that "a child that died at birth will go to hell fire" according to you?

What I'm persuaded from the Bible is that children are regarded as innocent being without knowledge of evil ('. . .and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil' - Deut. 1:39); and Jesus in the NT underscored that by a direct insinuation that the kingdom of God belongs to children (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14 & Luke 18:16) - which would mean that children are not sent to hell when they die.

olabowale:
Now, to quote Muhammad (AS), in his hadith, he said every one is born a muslim, but it is the parent that will change that child to be Christian or Jew. Remember that One can still change to another religion after one is no more under the authority/responsibility/roof of the parent. Infact there is ability to change even before one sees death. You are a good example, you are born into a Muslim home, you have apostated, yet there is still a chance for you to change back to islam or even change to something completely differnt. The bottom line is if you are on the straight line, the path to Paradise, the result of the Mercy of God.

Glad to know that I'm a good example of one who can change even before one sees death - and yes, I have changed my mind about the One whose deity, crucifixion, resurrection and saving grace are denied in Islam. You may call that apostacy, and I could sympathize with that; but you really have no idea what blessing and reassurance of divine peace rest in the heart of those who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. I implore you to consider the offer of mercy from the sinless One who truly saves - Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God.

olabowale:
I am surprised that you quoted Hebrew, Roman, Corithian and the likes to support your argument. You quoted Saul/Paul (Lanatullahi aleyhi) extensively.

Why the surprise? I'm sorry to say that Paul is not what Muslim haters have labelled him down through the ages; and I'm not one of those who blindly write him off.

olabowale:
Further, you did not pay attention to the tone of the speakers/writers of the new testament, the Gospel verses that you quoted. At best they were third persons, neither Jesus nor his companions, even they were not eyewitnesses. At best it was an account of hearsays.

Selective denials again, and like I said earlier, it is not in the least of my interests to be drawn out in choosy denials of Biblical texts. I would strongly disagree with you by pointing out the following references:

Rebuttal #1 - "they were not eyewitnesses"??

In direct speech, Jesus said to the disciples (the apostles whom He had chosen): "And ye are witnesses of these things" (Luke 24:48). The inspired writer Luke is many times accused by Muslims as misrepresenting the Gospel because he was not one of the twelve; but this is what he said from the onset: "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2).

Move on from Luke, and read what another disciple and apostle of Jesus Christ recorded from Jesus' own lips: "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning" (John 15:27). Later on the same apostle reiterated this vital element that Muslims deny today about the eyewitness account of the apostles. Hear him: " This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

Rebuttal #2 - "it was an account of hearsays"??

Hear John again - an apostle with firsthand report of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3).

Another apostle, Peter, has this to say: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16).

Besides all this, may I appeal to your intellectual honesty to understand that there is just no way the Qur'an would have made reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Sura 003:003) if Muhammad did not get it from the same Gospels in the Bible that many Muslims now disparage as "hearsays". In effect, they would be saying that *Allah* was claiming to have sent down and confirmed the "hearsays" of secondhand accounts of the Gospel of Jesus. In Sura 005:068, Muhammad was commanded to say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" (YUSUFALI's trans.). Isn't that interesting? And the next verse in Sura 005:069 says: "Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."

Your argument therefore is zero, and is only tantamount to a slant of not having studied carefully what that "Gospel" is that the Qur'an applauds, and which you in the 21st century now call "hearsays." Not even the supreme court of the United States would be that gullible.

olabowale:
In the courts of America, hearsay is not permissible. hence your whole argument is Zero. remember thatyou are not a Bible scholar and yes, even the Bible scholarship has no substantial foundation.

I never claimed to be a Bible scholar; and it would be interesting to see something of your own scholarship on the Bible and the Qur'an before making things worse for yourself.

olabowale:
The companions of Jesus (AS), from every account did not receive instructions from jesus (AS) nor did they take the initiatives to write revelation as it comes down to Jesus (AS) nor the saying and deeds and what Jesus permitted them to do.

Yes sir, and I've dealt with that part of your carping just above by showing how very off point you are. Just remember that Muhammad knew nothing of the Gospel of Jesus outside what the Bible says in the New Testament, nevermind his twisting here and there of a "Gospel" he neither understood nor could defend as he could not tell Muslims what the 'original' Gospel of Jesus contained.

olabowale:
Unlike in Islam, Muhammad (AS), from the first revelation to the last, there were scribes,who he insrtucted to write them down. They were always more than one scribes. The texts were recited in Salah, in ceremonies, taught to each other, one another, recited in every part of muslim life which included even parting or saying goodbyes, inshort they were memorized and put into practical usage and acted upon.

Thanks for reminding us - but there again two things come to mind. Muslims will do anything to deny that the Qur'an they read today is the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman after he edited what suited him and ordered the other extant copies of the Qur'an to be burnt. Have you thought for a moment the real lesson to be learnt from that? Again, I sympathize whith the Muslim mindset to deny just about anything that they feel uncomfortable with their belief system - I've been there before.

Second, I don't remember Muhammad having been instructed by *Allah* to write down any verse of the Qur'an; so if he instructed his scribes to write down any sura or text of the Qur'an, what then is the big quarrel with the texts of the Bible having been written down for us to read in our day? Moses was instructed by God indeed to write as he was commanded; John was so required to write what we read in the Revelation (Rev. 1:11 & 19); and even so, I don't remember God having a quarrel with the writers He inspired in the Gospel accounts. If it is too much an issue about the writing per se, why not throw out the Qur'an altogether - afterall, as you just acknowledged, it was penned down by Muhammad's scribes.

olabowale:
The chain of recitation is unbroken even up to the present era. As to the hadith, Abu Huraira (RA), used to shadow his prophet (AS), recording every thing that was said, every action and what he permitted. Others did the same. Education was very paramount to Islamic knowledge and the Muslims learnt and acted. As for Abu Huraira, some companions (RA) complained to the messenger (AS) about his writing every thing about him and from him down, fearing that since Qur'an was the only thing that (AS) had instructed to be qriting down, the Messenger (AS) told them to leave Abu Huraira alone in his penmanship. You will see the difference between Qur'an, the hadith versus the Bible in its textural collections. Islam does not allow any one to doctor the Holy book and the hadith has specific ruling.

Thanks again for the lecture. What's the question again?

olabowale:
(AS) stated that whoever makes any wrong statement about him (AS), that person should take his place in Hellfire.

Good then, because those who wrote the Hadith should be sent to Hellfire for having stated the Hadith quotes about Muhammad referenced in most of the replies you read on the Forum.

olabowale:
Sometimes, over this weekend, I shall respond to your entries and recommend a comprehensive book to you titled what did Jesus (AS) really say. By the way the Jesse which a prophet will come from to continue the covenant is not a Jew/Children of Israel. Jesus is not that prophet. Yes there is a Jesse other than the father of Prophet David (AS). He, this jesse whose lineage came this prophet is the Son of another Prophet, Prophet Ismail (AS), the first son and at a time in the life of Ibrahiim, his only son (AS).

Ingenious and creative, but that simply won't sell in a spurious market. How you make out this other Jesse from the lineage of Ismail by a Jewish prophet (Isaiah) addressing Jews (Isaiah 11) would be a good storyline for one of those Nigerian home videos. Unless you'd like to interpolate how the Arabs (Ismail) have ever addressed God by the covenant name with which He revealed Himself to the Jews (as seen in Isa. 11:2, 3, 9 & 15).

olabowale:
Remember that the issue is the role of Jesus, limited to the Jews or extended to the whole Universe. We are only interest in what Jesus said about himself, to some extend what his companions recorded directly from him. I am sure you will never be able to provide any.

Settle down and read through my piece again in my previous reply - did you miss the several texts I referenced? Read John 3:7-21 and see who was speaking. In that portion of Scripture, anyone can see that the speaker was none other than was Jesus Himself, and in verses 15 to 17, this is what He said:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Did you catch the last line - "that the world through him might be saved"?? That is Jesus' own statement about His mission to the world, and if you deny that, you can deny just about anything (and I'll let others fill in the blanks for you).

olabowale:
We are not interested in what Saul/Paul the liar has to say. His condition is with God.

This is such a pity, and you may wake up to find that the one you call a liar was indeed telling the truth. Don't let it be too late.

olabowale:
As for Muhammad, while he was alive, his companions included, Jews, Arabs, European, Asians, Africans, Men and Women, Young and Old, slaves and nobilities, poor and wealthy, etc. People outside the arab penisula came to see him, joined his religion. God commanded him (AS), directly to preach to the world. (AS) then wrote letters to the ruers of thye major civilations as a result of this.

What makes you think for a moment that the same classes of people have not been saved by responding in simple faith to the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ? Could you even imagine the peace millions have found in deep crises by only hearing the Gospel of Jesus with His having written any letters?

olabowale:
He wrote to the empror of Rome, the King of Prussia, the Byzentine king and others to include the African King in Ethopia. The text was very simple but direct, ' Dear King, I am Muhammad, the messenger of Allah. Accept Islam and be benefitted. If you refuse, be witnessed that we are Muslims, submitting our will to God' .

Just that - and the world cowered at Muhammad's feet? What did Muhammad do to those who refused and rejected his religion? Is there something you're trying so hard to hide from public reading, or it's just one of those denials again?

Dear Sir, your rejoinder was well appreciated; however, I would have expected a more reasoned discourse from you than the little complaints that failed to consider clear statements from the Bible and instead trump up denials that are unsustained. May I, in closing, offer that you ask God to reveal His loving grace in Jesus Christ to you. It is of little import that most Muslims accuse and slander Paul; what is of vital substance is that the Gospel was being preached long before Paul emerged on the scene. Take a moment to discover God's loving grace in Jesus - there's nothing to lose thereby.

@Bobby,

There's no need to be tedious about this by repeating what is unsustained in Scripture, unless you really believe that the first day of the week mentioned in Acts 20:7 was a Saturday!

Meanwhile, you still have failed to address some of the questions in this connection that I offered.

Dear Logical,

I have learnt in the last few weeks, and I'm still learning. Like you, I'm least interested in attacking any person - if at all in the least. But that does not mean that statements can't be made or referenced as to what people have done and why those things were committed with a jusitifying twist. As long as people feel that others have no right to live because they choose to have separate beliefs, then we continue to question and challenge such reasonings.

Now, on to your enquiry:

Logical:

m4malik link=topic=21871.msg586897#msg586897 date=1157090710:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24).

I am just interested in the last quotation, does it mean that God is unfair, considering the fact that he uses one person's sin to punish others, in this case the entire humanity?

Yes? Why?
No? Also why?

I don't think it is a question of God being "fair" or "unfair"; rather, it is more a question God's mercy declaring what man is in His sight, and what He does about man's condition in seeking to redeem him. Read the text again - it says all have sinned; it does not say that one man alone sinned. If we could keep things in contextual perspectives, confusions would be minimised.

God is just; but it would be untenable to reason that God's fairness could be predicated on man's assumptions. From the day that Adam disobeyed God, man has suffered the effect of that disobedience.

Even in Islam, there's a belief that every human being that comes into the world is tainted by sin, as attributed to Al-Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari, VI, 54, Bk. 60, chap. 54, trad. 71), in which Muhammad was reported to have said: "Satan touches every child when it is born, whereupon it starts crying loudly, except Mary and her son." The Ayatollah Khomeini was said to have made the statement reflecting that Islamic belief - "You should pay attention and all of us should pay attention (to the fact) that man's calamity is his carnal desire, and this exists in everybody, and it is rooted in the nature of man."

The point is that you can't hinge a blame on God being "unfair" simply because Rom. 3:23-24 appears in the Bible. I'm sure you would have had no problem with that if it rather appeared in the Qur'an. Do you still think God is "unfair" after reading what Muhammad and Ayatollah Khomeini said??

I would rather offer that it is an act of divine mercy that God would not leave man in such a condition of sin and death - and I'm really thankful that as a sinner, I have been "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Dear Drusilla,

Drusilla:
Blood from animals could not make one perfect but they could atone for sin for a while. The same as Jesus atoned for our sins, but since our covenant is a better covenant, our atonement through Jesus makes us perfect.

I'd have to agree with your reasoning about the OT sacrifices atonin[/b]g for the sins of the people according to the Law; but I'm not quite sure that even that could be equated to Jesus' vicarious sacrifice.

Drusilla:
Jesus Christ left their house desolate (the abomination of desolation) it's not like they could offer the sacrifices today anyways.

[b]That was the point of the 'abomination of desolation' to take away the first covenant through which the blood of goats and bulls could atone for sins, yearly.

The Abomination of Desolation, is still in effect.

The 'abomination of desolation' spoken of in Matt. 24:15 was not meant to take away the first covenant, for it was a prophecy indexed from Daniel 9:26 and pointing to the persecution of the Jews by the 'prince that shall come' with one mission: to 'destroy the city and the sanctuary'.

However, in Matt. 23:37-38 Jesus declared "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" as a direct judgement upon obstinate Jews who rejected and killed the prophets sent to them, the climax of which is their rejection and crucifixion of the Son of God (read verses 34-36).

The first covenant was done away with for the simple reason that God Himself gave in Hebrews 10:6 - "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure." This is the basic premise right from the very first verse of that chapter (Heb. 10:1) that you even had quoted in your reply. It was because the Law only had a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image/substance, the sacrifices contained in them could not serve to the end of perfecting those who drew near in worship to God. Thus, the first covenant was taken away that the second may be established.

In summary, the first covenant was not faulted on Matt. 23:38 ('your house is left unto you desolate'); for had the obstinate Jews never killed or stoned any of the prophets for which judgement was pronounced in that chapter, it still would not have left 'the shadow' of the old covenant standing whilst the Messiah was long promised in Gen. 3:15 & 22:18 even before the Law was enacted.

Drusilla:
To believe that the first was simple the actual RACIAL Jews from the 12 tribes, and the second were somehow Christian non-Jews.
One would have to prove that all Christians go through the great tribulation.
Where are the Christians in this scenario who died long before the Great Tribulation, those who never went through the tribulation?

The point isn't whether or not Christians go through any tribulation, however that may be. Rather, the fundamental point is that Christians are not Jews - for in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Romans 2:28-29 is not proof text for Christians being called 'Jews' - you will not find that idea sustained anywhere in Scripture. The subsequent chapters of Romans shows that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners before a holy and righteous God, as seen in chapter 3:9 & 10 - 'What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.'

The bottom line is that both Jews (including the ones in Rom.2:28-29) and Gentiles, all stand before God as sinners - and all are in need of God's redemptive grace, offered in Jesus Christ:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24).

Hi there Drusilla,

While I would agree with a few of your inputs, your other summations are a bit of a concern as I don't find them sustained anywhere in the Bible. Let me quote you:

Drusilla:
Why would Jesus be trying to speak to and save ONLY the lost sheep of Israel, while He lived?
It's simple. Israelites were doing blood sacrifices at the temple as ordered in the old testament, thus they could still be saved under the old system of animal sacrifices.

Meanwhile, Gentiles could not be saved under such a system until they had their own blood sacrifice.

Which was Jesus, only after His death and blood sacrifice could outsiders be saved.

Jews had blood sacrifices and could be saved while Jesus lived.
Gentiles did not get their blood sacrifice until after Jesus died.

I don't think that the OT sacrifices saved anyone - not even the Jews, otherwise the same sacrifices would be just sufficient to save them today after the vicarious work of Jesus on the Cross had been accomplished. However, that the OT sacrifices did not save anyone under the old covenant, my persuasions are borne out of the following texts:

Heb 10:3 - But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Heb 10:4 - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 10:11 - And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Heb 10:12 - But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 10:14 - For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

There is no saving power in the blood of bulls and goats offered in the OT sacrifices according to the Law, for those sacrifices only did not "take away" the sins of the people - and that is the very reason why their sins were continually remembered year after year before God, until the Perfect sacrifice was presented: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.

Drusilla:
So gentiles are joined to the house of Israel. We do not remove them or replace them but we are joined to them. Thus we are joined to the 12 tribes.

Again, this is not convincingly sustained in the Bible. God sees only three groups of people from according to I Cor. 10:32 - (a) the Jews; (b) the Gentiles; and (c) the Church of God. In the Church, it is categorically declared that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28 and Col. 3:11); so it is quite untenable to reason that we are joined to the 12 tribes of Israel. When you turn for a minute to Revelation 7, after the twelve tribes were mentioned, the Bible says in verse 9:

"After this [that is, after the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel in the preceding verses] I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."

Were these added to the twelve tribes of Israel? Not at all. We do not become Jews after believing in Christ; neither do we hold onto our 'Gentile' distinctives. We are simple the Children of God by faith in His Son, and consequently known as Christians, and ot Jews or Gentiles.

Just my observations. Regards.

Hello Babs787,

I would like to offer a somewhat different perspective to the question by stating my answers in an outline.

First, as regards your enquiry, the basic question is: Was Jesus sent to the whole world? I'm convinced indeed that the Biblical answer is a resounding "yes", and to quote Biblical texts to "prove" otherwise is simply missing the point.

Prophetic Promises of Universal Salvation in Jesus Christ

In the Old Testament, God made several prophetic promises of salvation that would be offered to the entire world and not just to the Jews alone:

[1].  Gen. 22:18 - 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.' God gave this promise to Abraham, in which we understand that there was only one Person that "thy Seed" could be referring to - and that is Jesus Christ, according to Gal. 3:16 - ''Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seed[b]s[/b], as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Thus, all the nations of the earth are to be blessed in Jesus Christ and none else.

[2].  Isa. 11:10 - 'And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.' The Gentiles are non-Jewish people, and here the text shows that even before Jesus was born, His salvation was promised to people who are not Jews as well. In the NT, Jesus categorically offered His glorious rest to whoever comes to Him by faith (see Matt. 11:28 -  'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' ~~ did you notice here that His invitation was to all?).

[3]. Isa. 49:6 - "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." The last portion of this text is clearly indicative of Jesus Christ who was promised to be God's salvation unto the end of the earth, rather than to only the Jews (notice the possessive pronoun "my" in the statement 'my salvation to the end of the earth' - which shows that God's prophetic word was uttered by the prophet in that text).

[4].  Isa. 52:10 - "The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." Again, a prophetic declaration that God's salvation in Christ was to reach non-Jews as well.


New Testament Fulfillment of The Promises

Jesus Christ often made statements in His ministry that clearly indicated that everyone was included in His saving grace and redemptive sacrifice on the cross. Notice how many times He showed this with such words as "whosoever" - which in the context that they appear would be pointing to just about anyone who was either a Jew of Gentile:

[1]. Jesus was speaking in the following texts:

Matt. 7:24  "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock"

Matt. 10:32 - "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."

Matt. 11:6 - "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."

John 3:15-16 - "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 12:46 - "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

Notice that even before Jesus went to the Cross to be crucified, He categorically stated that He was sent to the world rather than to just the Jews. The problem in understanding the texts you had referenced earlier is that you had misconstrued the nature of His first coming - He was to be presented first to the Jews before the Gentiles. This is pivotal, because even Jesus reminded us that salvation is of the Jews in John 4:22 - and those who have known God's counsel about this will recognise also that salvation is presented in this mode: first to the Jews and the to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16 & 2:10).

Another important issue about this is that Jesus reiterated in Luke 13:33 that "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." God did not send a Gentile prophet to the Jews, for that would contradict John 4:22, and the Jews knew quite well in declaring, "Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet" (John 7:47). In the climax of His ministry in having been with the Jews and persistently besseching them, Jesus spoke a parable to the Jews in Matt. 21:33-43 to show how the Jews' rejection of their Messiah would usher in the Gentiles in a very surprising manner. Notice what He said at the end of the parable in verses 42-43:

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you [that is, the Jews], and given to a nation [that is, non-Jews and believeing Jews] bringing forth the fruits thereof."

So, what did Jesus Himself say after the resurrection? Hear Him -

Mat 28:18-20  
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Luke 24:46-47  
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I hope this helps in answering your enquiry. Jesus saves, and He offers His salvation to you today, whether or not you're not Jew or Gentile.

@Bobby,

I'm really concerned about the points you raised, but would not be tedious in my reply. The point is, tying Daniel 7 to the RCC just doesn't square with Scripture at all, and the questions I posed about that have still not been addressed.

Meanwhile,

Bobbyaf:
No where in scriptures does it speak about a change from one day to the next either by Christ or His apostles.

Is that not precisely what I alluded to in my last reply - that, it is all not a matter of "change" but of simple statements made in the NT? The apostles simply gathered on the first day of the week for Christian worship - and that long preceded the RCC. Again I'd like to re-state what I said earlier: "Since this was what the early Christians did, is it too much for contemporary Christians to follow their example?" And again, I observe that the questions I raised in this regard have not been addressed at all.



Hi @laruth,

Perhaps it would help to see the distinction between the OT and NT so that the blurring of issues is minimized. As an example, let me reference one of your assumptions -

laruth:
Day of Atonement

Commanded in the Old Testament: Leviticus 23:26-32

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament: Acts 27:9

This is what Acts 27:9 says: "Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them,"

That verse does not say that Jesus Christ observed the Day of Atonement, and it only goes to show how mistakes are made by taking texts out of contexts to prove what they do not say.

TV01:
I must apologise on behalf of all the Christian posters thus far. No has posted a direct response to your initial request asking Christians "to confess". Please forgive this oversight on behalf of my brethren and allow me to rectify that wrong;

Hi TV01,

I'd kindly like to ask that you exclude me from that apology - in all fairness I don't owe firdaus4us any apology so far, as long as his original post did not make any sense at all, judging from the content of his first entry on this thread. "Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:11) is the quintessential confession of the Christian faith; but the gentleman is asking us to deny that confession, and I can't take part in his exercise!

firdaus4us:
It is now confirmed that u are not getting the messages of the Holy Quran right. Thanks God that at least u believe in the part(s), that "support" your argument!

My dear firdaus4us,

You still miss the point, and until you acknowledge the simple statements of the Qur'an about the roundabout arguments you're posting, there'll be no end to all the confusion you're helping yourself with. And no thanks, I never said I believed in any part(s) of the Qur'an to "support" my arguments. 

firdaus4us:
Well, all the verses u quoted just confirmed that Allah sent down Books before the Quran. Do u know that these books were sent to these prophets(for guardian over their wards) directly from God.

Your mistake again. *Allah* did not send down Books before the Qur'an, and what you're supposing is only a claim by Muhammad in the Qur'an which you have not taken the time to study and check out. In the quotes I referenced earlier from the Qur'an about *Allah* sending down and confirming the Law of Moses, have you pondered for a moment that it was Moses who actually wrote down what he was instructed by God to write? Let me reference a few texts to show how this is so -

Exo. 24:4 - And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Exo. 34:27 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Deut. 31:9 - And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

You'll find pretty much the same situation with the rest of the writers in the Bible; and collectively these are all referred to as men inspired and moved by the Holy Spirit to write down whatever they did write. The point therefore is, God did not send down books before the Qur'an; rather, He inspired men to write down what He gave them in instruction to do - and that is what we know as the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

firdaus4us:
Also, God's Books to the prophets, basically contain His words/messages for mankind not the prophet words or his companions.

I may well agree with you that the message or words were God's own and not man's - which is precisely what your scholars missed, because you ought to have remembered this from the onset before quoting misdirected fellows who see the inspired messages only as man's own and not God's Word. The only point I disagree with you is this: God did not send down Books - rather, He both instructed and inspired the writers who subsequently penned down what we read today.

firdaus4us:
Do u know that Bible was written years after Jesus left the surface of the earth?

That is interesting to note - and you really have a big problem here. If the Bible was written years after Jesus left the earth, then please deal with these questions:

(1) Since the Bible did not exist in Jesus' day, where did He get the Old Testament quotes He used in His teachings in many places? Let me show you a few:

   ¤ when defeating the temptations of the Devil, Jesus clearly said in Matt. 4:4 --
      "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
      Where did He get this quote from if the OT did not exist centuries earlier? (see Deut. 8:3).

   ¤ in commending John the Baptist as a true Prophet sent by God, this is what Jesus said in Matt. 11:10-11 --
     "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee: Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist."
     Now, where did Jesus get this quote from if Malachi (another OT book) did not exist in His day?? (see Mal. 3:1).

   ¤ when refuting the wrong practices of His day, Jesus clearly said Matt. 21:13 --
     "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer."
     Where then did Jesus get this quote from if not that Isaiah 56:7 already recorded it in the OT?

2. Now if the Bible was written years after Jesus left the surface of the earth, then perhaps the Qur'an got it all wrong by claiming otherwise! How else could the Qur'an claim that *Allah* sent down and confirmed the same Law of Moses, the Psalms of David (Sura 4:163 - "and to David We gave the Psalms", and several other Biblical narratives even before Jesus was born, and then some Muslim scholars today turn round and make the bogus claim that the Bible was written years after Jesus?

As for the rest of your story lines, pretty much the same common sense should make you see the fallacy of your arguments; because in trying to "disprove" the Bible, you only end up disproving the Qur'an that claims *Allah* sent down and confirmed what you're arguing against!

LoverBwoy:
an autobiography of Muhammed is not a holy book

I've been sitting behind the screen and just reading so far until now - and I must give credit to you for being one of the very few who make any sense at all.

It is true that Muhammad's biography is not a holy book, even though some Muslims revere the Hadiths as much as they do the Qur'an. However, my concern has been that the one who claimed to be the "last Prophet" should not have lived contrary to the calling of holy prophet.

@firdaus4us,

What really are you getting at? In trying to discredit the Bible as the mere word of men, you don't seem to realise that you're discrediting the Qur'an in very fact! 

Dr. W Graham Scroggie and Kenneth Cragg (whoever they were/are) may have seemingly supplied you with the munition you supposed helped your case; but you've only shot yourself in the leg. Let me show you:

1. If your 'scholars' had supposed that the Bible is 'condensation and editing', let's apply that to what the Qur'an says:
Q. 003.003 YUSUFALI:
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

So, does your "condensation and editing" begin with those who discredit the Bible or with the "He" who purportedly sent down and confirmed what you read in the Bible? May God have mercy on your 'scholars'!

Now, that is the "semantic gymnastics" your scholars have levelled at your *Allah* in the Qur'an. If the Bible is not the "irrefragable Word of God," then who is the "He" in the Qur'an who sent down (step by step) what you read in the Bible - including the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)??

2. Not only did the Qur'an claim that *Allah* sent down the Law and the Gospel, but it is also claimed that "He" confirmed what you read in that precious Book:

Q. 005.046 YUSUFALI:
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

Did you notice how emphatically the Qur'an "confirmed" both the Law and the Gospel? Who are these scholars of yours that shortchanged you so badly? What have they proven to you, other than that as a matter of fact, if there's any "semantic gymnastics" it would have to be first levelled at the one who purports to have both sent down, revealed and confirmed what your scholars are quarrelling about! Isn't that amazing??

3. "Professional propagandists," you say? Well, that may well be in your on little carping; but here's a little something for you to ponder on - even the Qur'an respects the Bible so much that it asks us Christians to hold on to what has been revealed therein! Take a look -

Q. 005.068 YUSUFALI:
Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."

It is interesting that even when Muhammad received such a "revelation," he still had some misgivings about this quote; so he added -

"It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."

Would anyone take Muhammad seriously in the latter part of this claim? If there's any cause to do so, let me ask you this question - did *Allah* send down, reveal and confirm a revelation to anyone to increase obstinate rebellion and blasphemy after having claimed that the reason for such a revelation was to serve as a "guidance and light" and "an admonition to those who fear Allah" (Q. 005:046) as well as "as a guide to mankind" (Q. 003.003)??

So, who's fooling who and who are your professional propagandists - those decrying the Bible or those who know it is actually the ultimate light and guide to mankind?

Let me offer you this: take time to read through the Bible - page by page, prayerfully and with an open heart - and then see if at all your 'scholars' have done you a good service at all! It is truly amazing that for all the complaints and hoo-ha that may be levelled from whatever quarters, even the Qur'an could not find a fault with Jesus Christ!

wholex:
this thread was not meant for the use of abusive languages or words but for us to discuss a burning in world today.

Well @wholex, that's just about what I thought, but I didn't mind though that some would resort to use them on me.

I think that more damage is done when people have no answers and instead resort to unethical means to pass a point.

@firdaus4us,

First, when you engage in issues like this, it doesn't help much to evaluate the Person and work of Jesus based solely on what the Qur'an says as long as it mentions the "Gospel" of Jesus. It would help promote a better understanding to read about that Gospel from the New Testament.

Second, unlike ISAHO, you've acknowledged the fact that Muhammad married others - by implication, more than 4 women. However, I'm not so sure that all the other women were 'those that lost their husband in one way or the other' - (what about, for instance, Juwairiyah bint Al-Harith and Safiyah bint Huyai bin Akhtab?).

@niterider, many thanks for your terse and mild appellation ("assholes" in contrast to what your 'Prophet' called non-muslims. It just gets to prove by the day how Bad good you are.

You could tell that to Muslims as well - Jesus is also in the Qur'an.

It's great to see all the heat generated so far in the responses. For those who feel that "Sheikh M4Malik" is barbaric for simply pointing out what Muhammad taught his followers, that's quaint - but it still does not obliterate the facts of what you're trying to hide.

I haven't "interpreted" Islam for anyone other than pointing readers to the explicit statements in Islam's holy books and challenging people to think for ourselves. It's hilarious that instead of offering counter views to what I've posted and discussing those points raised, only noise returns just to hush what is being said.

@firdaus4us,

Where were you when OlaAjia uttered more than abusive words about Solomon on the Religion board?

And as for all the other misconceptions you're trumpeting on this thread, I'll just refrain for now to give you time to go through other threads and see how they've been roundly dealt with. It's only a pity you haven't taken good time to study the background of the Qur'an itself.

firdaus4us:
Do u know that Hebrew language which is the language of Jesus contains no letter J, then why do u call him Jesus not Isa, as it was written in original language of the Bible. Please ask anybody that understand the language before u post your respond.

I don't know so much Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic - the original languages of the Bible; but I know that you're highly mistaken to suppose that the New Testament was written in Hebrew - for it is in the NT that Jesus is mentioned. Secondly, if you have a quarrel about the name Jesus, then your translators must have done a very, very poor job by your evaluation, because Yussuf Ali and Pickthal, translated His name as J[/b]esus. Let me show you:

Q.002.136
[b]YUSUFALI: Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

Besides, why don't you take a moment and consider the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Qur'an definitely claims that *Allah* sent down, revealed and confirmed the Gospel of Jesus Christ - wouldn't it be great to take a calm and prayerful look at what that Gospel is? May God grant you His saving grace in Christ as you do so.

lagerwhenindoubt:
But let us quit this already, some people don't mind Spirit or Ghost, some do. the good thing is we catch the drift. Ghost or Spirit we are talking about a celestial, spiritual form or intelligent being who is our comforter and will reveal all things (sadly not the burning mystery of his/its true form)

Finally, you come round to the same square as others.

lagerwhenindoubt:
I try to avoid religious "sacred mystries"

Wonderful - I see how that is, the previous paragraphs just to the point.

The point is, why do we even bother over semantics to 'prove' a better or 'right' word when no one would be confused in reading the Bible and understanding who is being meant in any text by the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit? Everyone's had their good points, but like is said in the quote above, let's quit this already.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children. . . _{Matt. 19:14}

You could just as well search the word 'suffer' in dictionary.reference.com and start a whole round of semantical arguments.

Have people prayed in the Holy Ghost - Jude 1:20? And did God come through "Boooooo-ing" at them? It's just amazing how great a matter we make from small issues.

Haba, I thought you'd have set us straight about what, in your opinion, we misconstrued as 'propaganda sites'.

Psa. 68:11 - The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the news are a great host.

I particularly like the theme: Stop The Wickedness!

About time.