₦airaland Forum

Juárez



Q

Okay, sorry - didn't realise you're such a nice babe!

Perhaps you need to modify the title of the thread (did you mean: Can Prayer Alone Help Naija?)

Pray, watch, take action, persevere - I think that's what we need, and doing just one without the others will not help much.

I should learn to hold my basket mouth and wait next time!


Enjoy, my dear!

'Preciate you, bro.

@lordimpaq,

'Preciate your concerns, but like I often say:
It is one thing to quote the Scriptures; quite another to understand their application and meaning.

I saw your discourses with 4get_me, and I'm persuaded that whatever we examine in Scripture should not be taken in isolation but be referenced in light of all that God's Word teaches on a subject. Jesus gave us a principle that I've always found helpful:

¤ Take heed what ye hear_{Mark 4:24}

¤ Take heed therefore how ye hear _{Luke 8:18}

It's not enough to quote 'what' the Scriptures declare; it's very important that we understand the meaning of a text - the 'how' of it. Jesus often used this principle in His discourses with the enquirers of His day:

¤ He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?_{Luke 10:26}

The issue of the Sabbath or any other matter should not be so problematic for us if we prayerfully apply this principle. God desires us to understand His mind on any subject; but He has also given us the necessary resources in the revelation of the Holy Spirit and the principle of Scripture exegesis for that. We are encouraged to be rightly dividing the Word of truth (II Tim. 2:15), and with that we need not be confused about any subject.

Drusilla:
The rapture is a small event that most of God's people will never experience.

Dru,

How did you come to this conclusion? I don't think Scripture treats the rapture as a small event; much less that most of God's people will never experience it. I may be mistaken, but could you clarify?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The expression "not under the law is more than likely referring to its condemnation rather than obligation. Here is why I say that. Listen to Paul's opening statement in Romans 7:1

Your efforts are appreciated, but you've scarcely added anything to my arguments and only came to acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that your previous assumptions were weak. "Under the Law" points to obligation and not condemnation; it is in applying the Law to our lives that something else (sin) brings about a condemnation - yes? So, the expression "not under the law" is not more than likely referring to its condemnation; rather it points to obligation - and your exegesis only came to prove that.

Bobbyaf:
God's 10 commandment law is not and can never in all honesty be called a Mosaic law. The Mosaic laws were written by Moses, and were meant to be temporal. God's law is eternal.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's only one Law Giver (see James 4:12). That which Moses wrote down was actually God's Law. So, if Moses' Law was temporal, by inference you'd be saying that God's Law was temporal. God gave the Law through Moses, and that's why Scripture speaks of it in several places as the Law of Moses.


Matthew 5:17-19

Bobbyaf:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus actually asking Christians to keep the Law in this text? If that were the case, then it would seem as if Paul's teachings contradicted it. However, notice in verse 18 that the Lord Jesus made clear that all things in the Law must be accomplished (or fulfilled) - by who? By none else but Him! That is precisely what He stated in verse 17, for He would be the only One to fulfill them, and those who believe in Him would receive the blessing of His accomplishments. That is precisely what He taught after His resurrection - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning ME" (Luke 24:44).

This is why Paul's inspired discourse aptly conveys the understanding that it is through Christ's obedience that believers are made righteous - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:19).

It is one thing to quote the Scriptures; quite another to understand their application and meaning.

LAHLAXZA:
Wow i thought the muslims were the violent ones. Please excuse my assumptions.

At least, we know that Muslims are violent by default (both to themselves and to others), because that's what the Qur'an teaches
Many times Muslims assume that Christians are supposed to remain passive and then try to take advantage of that misconception to misbehave. Did your Qur'an teach you to be deliberately bellicose so that you could slap another person without provocation?

Bhola:
I could tell you where Gwaine is hiding, but I might have to kill y'all. So to avoid that, I'll say, he is doing fine and you will see him soon. Hopefully all of the other contributors have gone to sharpen their knowledge. Cos, it will even get more, hmmm, what's the word now?

Uhm. . . about Gwaine's hideout, u're kidding, right?

Anywayz, good to know that he's alright and doing well. And thanks for your encouragements. Bless up.

Well then, we both noticed it right from when Gwaine showed up with his gas-lighter!

Gwaine!! Where art thou - you disappeared as well!

Bobbyaf:
Notice it said sin shall not have dominion over you becasue true christians are obedient to God's instructions and really have nothing to worry about. Hence God's law cannot judge us when we are obedient. In fact when it says "not under the law" it means not being under the condemnation of the law.
Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to be under the law? The one who steals another man's wife, or the one who desists from yielding to temptation to do the same? Each time you set out to steal something what comes to mind? Isn't it "thou shall not steal"?

I beg to disagree with your reasoning here because it's not supported by Scripture. "Not under the law" does not speak of condemnation but obligation - so that where the text appears as such, it rather means that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Law as the means to gaining perfection or any grace from God. The idea that 'under the law' indicates 'condemnation' wuld make me wonder if that is precisely what God meant when He sent His Son under the law - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4). So, did God send His Son under condemnation? God forbid the very thought.

Bobbyaf:
I am not saying that we are saved by the law? We are saved by grace, but the ridiculous notion that God's law somehow has taken a back seat, and is no longer applicable to christians, is a deception, or a gross mis-understanding.

Well, here is how "ridiculous" you'll find it in God's Word (pardon the silliness):

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:23-26.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." - Col. 2:14-17

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." - Heb 7:18-19.

There is an abundance of texts in Scripture consistently arguing the same thing - that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law nor justified by it. That is why I offer that when God saved us by grace, He did not seek to turn us back to the Law which He Himself was setting aside. Not that we are a lawless people under His grace; but we are not under obligation to the Law to be justified thereby.

Bobbyaf:
Hhhhmmmnnn, are you a sinner? Are you yet perfect? If the answer is no then the law applies to you. You might not be out there killing anyone, or living an adulterous life, but you're not perfect as yet, are you? Listen to what Paul says about what sin is:
1 John 3:4
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

I am not a sinner nor have I reached perfection; but that does not necessarily mean that the Law applies to me. I know quite well what Christ has done for me, for I have been perfected forever by His one offering (Heb. 10:14) - and that was what the Law could not do, because the Law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19).

Your quote of I John 3:4 was by John and not by Paul (we all make slips like that); but it has nothing to do with applying the Mosaic Law to a Christian.

Bobbyaf:
Just out of curiosity name one of the 10 commandments you find to be a problem?

I never said there was a problem with any of the 10 commandments; but are we justified by the 10 commandments?

Bobbyaf:
I see we are going back and forth here. Do you mind if we use scripture alone to verify how Sunday keeping started.

I wonder why you keep going round in circles about this. Do you really need my permission to use the Scripture alone - the very thing I'd asked you to do??

Bobbyaf:
Do me a favour can you submitt all those texts in the NT that show how the transition took place from sabbath worship to the official gathering on the first day of the week?

But Bobby, do I take it that you don't really care to read people's posts and understand them before asking questions? You'd notice that I've consistently argued that there was no transition from Sabbath worship to official gathering of the first day of the week. This might help as a reminder -

m4malik:
Second, before the arrival of Constantine on the scene, Christians had been worshipping on Sunday - the first day of the week; rather than a transition imposed by the Emperor from Saturday (the seventh day). Again, see Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2.

Did I miss out anything? I don't see a transition but an established practice of Christian worship being held on the first day of the week before Constantine came along with his political schemes.

@Bobbyaf,

You strike me as one who has a difficulty with interpretations, though I do not mean this in any derogatory way. It is one thing to hear or read the "what" of Scripture; quite another thing to know the "how" of what is read. Declaration id one thing; interpretation is quite another.

Bobbyaf:

m4malik link=topic=2754.msg527618#msg527618 date=1154077940:
Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

Not true friend! Paul said no such thing. Paul said "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me"

This is quaint. So, Paul said no such thing as we read of in Gal. 3:11-12?? In other words, when he said he could do all things through Christ (Phil. 4:13), did he reference that in context of keeping the Law? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the substance of your argument.

Bobbyaf:
God said to Abraham "Be ye holy as I am Holy"

It wasn't to Abraham God made that statement; rather it was to the nation of Israel. Of course, Abraham's walk with God was holy; but the references for that quote all appear in Leviticus and were directed to Israel (see Lev. 11:44-45 & 20:7).

Bobbyaf:
While I will agree with you that Paul wasn't making a big issue of the law in Romans 7, and neithr am I, but one thing is sure He set out to clarify something, otherwise he would not have said what he said about the law. Besides, Paul never had to ask christians to keep the law of 10 commandments since christians are usually obedient naturally. If you profess Christ you aught to follow His instructions. Jesus said in:
John 14:15
If you love me keep my commandments

Now you tire me with misconstruing things the way you do. Alright, good to know that you agree Paul never had to ask Christians to keep the Law of the 10 commandments; but was it simply because Christians are obedient naturally? I'd rather not, because Paul's argument for not keeping the Law is that whoever pursues such an adventure was debtor to do the whole Law! See it in Gal. 5:3-4 >>

Gal 5:3  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

When Christ asked us to keep His commandments in John 14:15, you surely would not suppose for an instance that He was turning us back to the yoke of the Law that we could not keep in the first place! He knew that none of us could be justified by the Law, because the Law in itself made nothing perfect.

Bobbyaf:
The question is what aspect of law was Paul talking about here in Galations? This is where the confusion steps in all the time. In Galations Paul qualifies the situation, by saying that circumcision cannot save anyone. The issue was never about the sabbath. It was something else.

Calm down and read it again in its context of application, and you'll find that the Law in Paul's discourse in Gal. 3:11-12 was not just about circumcision but rather the whole scope of the Law as he consistently argued in chapter 5 where he mentions circumcision as well. "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Circumcision is not the only element of his treatment of "the Law" in Galatians; rather, the whole body of the Mosaic Law was in view.

Bobbyaf:
Now that you mention being justified by the law its funny how Paul says something totally different in another section of his writings. Read:
Romans 2:12,13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
Is Paul contradicting himself? Obviously not! It all depends on the context of what he talks about. Here Paul uses the word law in one context, and in Galations he uses it in another context. Hence it behooves us to seek out exactly what he is talking about.

First, Paul never said anything totally different anywhere in the NT. Rather, in Rom. 2:12-13 he was developing a thesis to show how that even those who sought to be justified by doing or keeping the Law were actually not justified by the very Law that they sought to keep. Surprised? Well, look again - Romans didn't end in chapter 2, but the result of his argument is found in the next chapter: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom. 3:20). This has been Paul's consistent message all through his career, for he received the understanding from God Himself that people could not be justified in His sight by the Law - "And by him (that is, Jesus Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." [Acts 13:39].

The contexts in which Paul used "the Law" in both Romans and Galatians are precisely the same as he employed the term in Acts 13:39 - "the Law of Moses".

@nuru,

Your efforts are much appreciated, and it's obviously not an easy feat to discover those number-significances in the Qur'an. I could guarantee you that in my little knowledge of the Bible, numbers are significant as well, but the difference is that they have practical applications to our lives than merely discovering their coincidences in any sacred writ. Sometimes, I have asked my friends about the significance of the numbers in the Qur'an, and none has been able to give a salient answer other than what they've been told: "it's a miracle" - and yet, they can't explain what the miracle points to or indicates.

For example, Muslims are told that "Allah" has 99 wonderful names - my question has always been: "what is the significance and practical application of the number 99?" And when they speak of the number 19, one has to ask the same question - and yet no answers are forthcoming. So, you see my dear friend, it's not really helping us get anywhere to just discover some "miraculous numbers" in the Qur'an; but one must ask how those numbers help us understand the counsels of the true and living God.

Now, notice what you might have missed in your post:

nuru:
82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

To be sure, there are lots of discrepancies in the Qur'an that are explained away by muslim apologists in the past and present. One such is the discrepancy of Allah's identity in the Qur'an - is he monotheistic or polytheistic? If he is monotheistic, why then was he often speaking of "WE" in the Qur'an, especially in matters that had alone to do with God? Is it only Allah (a single being) that created the world, or were there more than one Allah (several beings) that created it? You cannot use a "WE" in speaking of something ascribed to just a single being! That is an obvious discrepancy that most Muslims today are not willing to examine.

nuru:
Let me refer you to an article and when you read it, don't just flip over it, research it and ponder over your findings. Then you will know that Allah is your Creator as well as the Creator of your progenitors. He alone is to be worshipped and there is none like unto Him.

I'm sorry, but the "Allah" of the Qur'an is not my creator nor of my progenitors; and I can't worship him even if I'm thrown in the fire or beheaded. The One true and Living God who is worthy of my worship and eternal love and devotion is found in the Bible, and Muhammad only mentioned elements of the Biblical faiths (Judaism and Christianity) to make it look like he was sent by that same God.

nuru:
'' Tariq Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the Holy
Qur'an that mention one thing is equal to another,
i.e. men are equal to women.

In my opinion, Tariq Al Swaidan may have discovered the numbers in the Qur'an enunciated in your reference, but he obviously was not correct in his analysis and application. First, some of us know that in Islam, one thing is not equal to another - and when you read the Qur'an and Hadith, you'll find that in practical terms, men are never equal to women! I'll spare readers the repetition of references to the point; but it's no longer secret that in Islam women are regarded as subhuman and treated that way.

nuru:
Upon further analysis of various verses, he discovered that this is consistent throughout the whole Qur'an,
where it says one thing is like another. See below for astonishing result of the words mentioned number
of times in Arabic Qur'an:

Malaika (Angels) 88 . Shayteen (Satan) 88
Life 145 , Death 145
Benefit 50 . Corrupt 50

Museebah (calamity) 75 . Thanks 75

You'll notice that I've been selective in picking out a few items for comparison and contrast.

Now ask yourself: does it really make any sense at all that one thing equals another (or is like the other) in the list you gave from Tariq Al Swaidan? Notice them again:

¤ are angels (malaika - 88) really equal to (or like) Satan (shayteen - 88)?

¤ is life really equal to death?

¤ is benefit really equal to corruption?

¤ is calamity really equal to thanks?

You already have the answers even before you read the last question - NO!! And in just the same practical way that women are never regarded as being equal to (or like) men in Islam, so nothing is really equal in the Qur'an. It would be interesting to see how many times "Allah" is mentioned in the Qur'an and what he would be equal to! 

nuru:
Question is that Who taught Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
all this?
Reply automatically comes in mind that ALMIGHTY ALLAH
taught him this. "[color=#000099][/color]

Don't be too quick about that, because similar claims have been made by the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) for the LDS founder, Joseph Smith. When you read the whole Qur'an and ask yourself the same question, you probably might fidget in your seat and not be too quick to give the same response. Take a few examples:

¤ who taught Muhammad that it was alright to lust after his maternal and paternal cousins? (Q. 33:50)

¤ who taught Muhammad that it was forbidden to inherit women against their will and yet he did the
    exact same thing himself in acquiring "war booties" (female captives) for sex against their will? (Q. 4:19)

¤ who taught Muhammad that it was forbidden to lust and yet he expressly displayed lust? (Q. 4:24)

You may not actually like what you're reading, but you see it's of no use quoting numbers in the Qur'an if the moral life of the Prophet who brought Islam is held in shrouded secrecy. I may never understand the numbers; but I do understand that a person's moral life determines his eternal destiny.

There are lots of things Ayatollah Khomeini has taught, and while most Muslims in the western hemisphere would be appalled to read some of them, one would have to wonder why he in fact got his teachings from. At the end of the day, you'd have to conclude that whatever hideous names the Ayatollah could be called by moderate Muslims, he was only echoing the religion and teaching of Muhammad.

babyosisi:
He claimed to have read the bible so many times and it led him to the Koran,the joke of the century,where does the Bible mention the Koran?

They often do that - make bogus claims that they've read the Bible several times, whereas they would fall flat on their faces when examined. It's not only the Qur'an/Koran they see in the Bible; most other muslim apologists would see other Islamic elements there - like the Kaa'ba, Muhammad himself in John 14 & 16 as well as in Deuteronomy 15 & 18, and how Jesus prophecied of the rise of Islam to replace Christianity. That was the lie we were told so that we could remain blind, and the icing to all the bogus claims (nay, falsehood) is that the Bible is has been corrupted - and yet they couldn't tell by whom and when or how; nor even consider that Caliph Uthman edited the original Qur'an and burnt all existing copies in his time.

nuru:
4. Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.

Sorry, after I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, my vision became clear enough to see the difference - the Qur'an is not presenting the One True and Living God, and those who are refusing to see it will remain in blind dogma.

nuru:
Please do a research on sovereign use of language and open your heart. Allah is One and Only. Alone in His Glory. No partner, No assistant, No wife, No consort.

You're still failing to examine your claims. A deity who claims to be "One" and "Only" and "Alone" in his glory should not be using WE in speaking of his works in creation - that is as clear as the noonday that he is joining partners with himself. If he could not be the Only creator of the world, then it is obvious he has to share his glory with those he has joined with himself, regardless the denials to the contrary. In a situation where he alone created all things without his assistants, then he should not have spoken of "WE created".

Who are the partners that Allah joins to himself in stating "WE created" in the Qur'an?

Quoting more verses in the Qur'an is not going to change the facts - "Allah" in the Qur'an associates himself with partners in creation while forbidding his worshippers from recognizing those partners.

If as your Qur'an purports that Allah is the One and Only, and and there's none like him, why then do we read of the same Allah joining partners with himself in matters of creation, prayer and worship? Allah speaks severally in the Qur'an in the plural sense of "WE created" - why is that so? Is it because he was afterall neither One nor Absolute?? Or that he could not have been the One and Only to have created the world and all in it by himself?? Why did he join partners with himself by 'WE' in creation and matters meant only for God?

An "absolute" deity in himself needs not join partners in creating the world or anything in it.

An "absolute" deity needs not join partners with himself in matters of prayer and worship.

It is not enough to just "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only" - we have to be sure that the same "Allah" is not confusing his worshippers.

@Bobbyaf,

I'd like to take up a few lines about your use of the Law -

Bobbyaf:
I am not certain what you're saying in this statement. In either case when a person experiences the grace of Jesus Christ his oe her life will be one of obedience. Listen to Paul as he describes the relationship between born-again christians and God's law of 10 commandments.
Romans 7:14
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Notice further what Paul said concerning God's commandments.
Romans 7:12
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

I'm not sure what you were driving at, but to quote certain texts without considering their import in the full scheme of God's economy is to miss the point. Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.. - Gal. 3:11-12.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. - Rom. 6:14.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, . . . - I Tim. 1:9.

From these and some other texts, it is obvious that Paul was not arguing that Christians keep the Law, for the Law made nothing perfect.

Bobbyaf:
I am not sure if there is a thing called law of the spirit, it has to be the other way around. Of course I very much agree with you there, but it doesn't mean that we are not subject to being obedient to God's 10 commandments.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Rom. 8:2

Bobbyaf:
There were not many Anti-Christs, but rather there were different teachings that portrayed the "spirit of anti-christ" There ia a vast difference.

The Bible:
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. - I John 2:18

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. - II John 1:7

Bobbyaf:
What the prophet spoke about in chapter 7 had to do with a specific religious system that would become the Anti-Christ. Revelation 13 refers to the very same religious power as the beast. Both prophets spoke of clues and characteristics that would make it easy for God's people to identify it during the period that it would reign for.

This is classic Seventh-Day Adventist theology, and has no Biblical bearing, sorry. The term 'antichrist' is alone employed by the apostle John in his epistles, and he shows that the Anti-Christ is not a 'specific religious system' but a very despicable individual who takes on the personality and power of the Devil. He is variously described in Scripture as -

   ¤ the man of sin, the son of perdition - II Thes. 2:3

   ¤ that Wicked (or the wicked one) - II Thes. 2:8

The Lord Jesus Christ did not treat antichrists as religious systems but as individuals - sinister and diabolic in character and operation:For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24).

What is more, in both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, this sinister minister of the devil is portrayed as a diabolically powerful individual, hideous in motive and blasphemous in thought and speech:

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Dan. 7:25). . . And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. (Rev 13:5-7).

There's an abundance of texts to show that you actually got it wrong here, and perhaps that's why your pedantic allusion to Constantine is weakened by your taking a few texts in isolation. What is even more surprising is that, on the one hand you seem to fit Constantine (an individual) into Daniel 7:25; but on the other hand, you conveniently re-interpreted the same Daniel 7:25 as a religious system!

Bobbyaf:
Constantine is the least of the problem right now. He was just the fore-runner of things. I just happened to mention him, because he had a role to play in the establishment of Sunday worship.

That may well be; but Sunday as a day of Christian worship predates the Emperor - Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2.

Bobbyaf:
Since a day represents a literal year then it logically means that this power would rule for 1260 years. Is it co-incidental that the RCC started ruling from AD538 and ended its rule temporarily in AD1798, when the French Revolution brought to an end all the schisms, aristocracy, and church curruption, and placing the pope under captivity where he died in exile? This is the deadly would mentioned in Revelation 13 that was given to the beast power.

You're making a huge mistake by inferring that there was an end of corruption in RCC rule - back then, maybe; but what is happening now? (apologies to any Catholic reading this - I don't mean to be crude). You're making it sound like Roman Catholicism is the beast! Sorry, that idea is often pandered by some people who virulently oppose the Catholic Church and haven't studied Revelation 13 for what God's Word says. The whole context of that chapter is not predicated on Catholicism, however the many problems and unbiblical practices they adopt. The real beast is yet to be revealed (remember II Thes. 2:1-8?), and when the time comes, by God's wisdom people who know the Lord will be able to see this divine drama clearly, especially when it comes to counting the number of the beast - 666 (see verse 18).

No, the RCC is not the beast of Rev. 13; and to devise notions about that weak theory only reveals the weakness of the theorists themselves.

Bobbyaf:
This religious power in the form of the RCC is nothing more than the anti-Christ itself usurping the ministry and glory of Christ. This was known long ago by different reformers. Its nothng new.

The Reformers may be right in some of their pursuits, but hardly correct in so many other things, not least of which is their misgivings about the RCC. Their theories about the RCC being the beast and the antichrist of Rev. 13 is dead wrong, and those still holding that theory should kindly let go and simply go to Scripture where God speaks.

Bobbyaf:
It is this same religious power that has introduced pagan festivals, including Sunday, christmas, easter, to name a few, by simply baptising them in the name of christianity.
Its no wonder John says "come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her sins, "

One could blame a lot of things on the RCC - but to go so far as to give them a bad name that is hardly theirs is dishonest.

Second, the voice in Rev. 18:4 was not John's, but one out of heaven (And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues). This text has to do with a corrupt system of spirituality (Babylon the Great - v.2), but your transition from Revelation 13 is a sad interpolation. It helps to understand that 'the Beast' in chapter 13 is quite different from 'Babylon the great' in chapter 18. Let's not stew up theories that make it convenient to blame all our misgivings on the RCC; otherwise before God we would be guilty of spreading lies by misapplying God's word. The theories of the Reformers on this issue are dead wrong, and we should save ourselves a load of trouble by discarding them.

Bobbyaf:
God's holy day of rest is the sabbath, being Saturday. God hasn't changed and neither has His words. he still commands us to "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, "

God never gave any such command to the Christian Church, for that is precisely a quote of the Mosaic Law - Exo. 20:8 ~~ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. This was a commandment to the Jews under the Mosaic Law, and Scripture specifically tells us that only to the Jews "pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom. 9:4). I'm not making a case against the Sabbath; rather, I'm pointing out that God didn't give any such commandment to the Church.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Forgive me my brother, but I am not so much interested in your summation as I am in what the bible says.

That may well be, but so far you've rather consistently demonstrated that you're not so much interested in what in fact the Bible says than in your own ideas. We'll see a few of them in just a moment.

Bobbyaf:
Once again if you need biblical evidences to show that christians kept the seventh-day sabbath, I can show them to you

Why the delays up until now?

Bobbyaf:
It was never a question of God waitng. It so happened that certain signs concerning what Daniel mentioned in the book started to take shape around the time of Constantine. No where in history was there any previous attempt to regulate Sunday as a day of rest, except as recorded here in the anals of history:
"On the venerable day of the sun (Sunday) let the Magistrates and people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed, " Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit 12,3

You'd just need to get the full picture of Biblical prophecy than taking texts in isolation. By emphasizing Daniel's prophecy and ignoring the prophetic declarations of the Church age as elucidated in my previous post, you would find Constantine fitting your ticket for the Sabbath change argument you're proposing.

Bobbyaf:
For political reasons Constantine struck a deal that would satisfy both christians and pagans. The pagans still had their Sunday, since that was their day used by them to honour the Sun God, and the christians fearing further persecution gradually kept both days, side by side, until the official establishment of the RCC in AD538, which further strengthened Sunday observance. This was the real and substantive commencment of the falling way mentoned by St. Paul.

Political and other means have always been used by anti-Christian persecutors down the ages, but what you've done here is one demonstration of the fact that you're taking your eyes off Scripture and pandering to some ideas that hardly bear substance to issues. Real Christians in the early ages have never feared "further persecution", and in no way did they gradually begin to keep both days 'side by side'. Certainly, there was a Constantine (born Flavius Valerius Constantinus at Nis on Feb. 27, 280) who became co-emperor in 305 of the then Roman Empire; and he used politics (rather than persecution) to strengthen his Sun-god worship by introducing syncretistic elements into Christianity in his empire. The result? Christians were undeterred but remained steadfast, refusing any syncretism even at the threat of death - which many of them suffered.

Second, before the arrival of Constantine on the scene, Christians had been worshipping on Sunday - the first day of the week; rather than a transition imposed by the Emperor from Saturday (the seventh day). Again, see Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2. If anything at all, Constantine didn't emerge to find Christians worshipping on, or keeping, the Sabbath - rather, he found them doing so on the first day of the week which is our Sunday. So, how could one reason that Constantine was responsible for the "change" from the seventh day to the first day of the week for Christians?

I'm sorry to note that what you refer to as the "official establishment of the RCC in AD538" is a convenient redaction of Roman Catholic history. The system of RCC was not officially established in the 6th century but much earlier, some tracing it as far back as the second or third centuries.

The "real and substantive commencment of the falling way mentoned by St. Paul" would be found in II Thes. 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Notice that it is connected with certain events, notably the man of sin being revealed. You haven't met that man yet, and when the apostles spoke of this decline and the "falling away", they spoke of it in context of the end that would usher in the day of Christ (v.2). To peg the commencement of the falling away of which Paul spoke at the political interpolation of Constantine is only a convenient juggling of ideas that falls short of the real essence of prophetic declarations.

Bobbyaf:
Do a simple google check and insert the phrase "edict of Milan" and you 'll see for sure whether or not its a human conjecture. History cannot lie. After Constantine defeated his rivals for power, and became the sole emperor, he regulated christianity as the religion of the empire.

Aye, but as I noted above, your political history of Constantine did not bear the fact of a "change" from the seventh day to the Sunday observed in Christianity. The first day of the week (Sunday) was already being enjoyed by Christians as the day of worship and Christian activities long before the Emperor in question arrived on the scene.

Bobbyaf:
That may be true but it doesn't make the point about Constantine untrue. You may not see that event as important based on what direction you're viewing bible prophecy.

Calmly read through your sources again and see if the "change" of the Sabbath has any substance - unless you're still ignoring the Scriptures.

Bobbyaf:
Of course Daniel wouldn't have known that Constantine would have been a part of the scheme you see. However, after history unfolds, and we begin to look back, its easier to put things into perspective. besides, i neve rsaid the 6th century, I said the 4th. The 6th century came into the picture when the Roman Catholic church was officially launched as having total control of the empire where being the official religion of Rome is concerned.

Huuhh??  
Did you just say that you never said the 6th century? Let me quote you again:

Bobbyaf:
Constantine was merely a pre-cursor to the beginning of the beast age which began in the 6th century, AD538 to be exact.

So there.

@belloti, sorry I didn't see your questions earlier. So here:

belloti:
Mr4malik and the rest of you guys. Can i just ask you for a change?
Do you think there is anything good in Islam?

Uhm, Muslims would have to convince me about the 'good' in Islam without ignoring the sources that show how the Prophet of Islam lived contrary to what he preached.

belloti:
Do you think by being Christian you are a better humans than Muslims?

Not for a deci-second; but being Christian has made me a better person than I was in the past. For a fair exchange, what would you say about those muslims who think that they are better than Christians and Jews - because they are convinced that's what the Qur'an preaches?

belloti:
Do you think right now there is something we could have done differently if we just swap faith?

Loads of things. I didn't just swap faith, I got convicted in my spirit that Jesus Christ is actually the Saviour - which is no small matter at all for someone previously blinded in my former conviction. Some of the things that we could have done differently include -

¤ seeing Christians differently and respecting them for their faith, rather than the anti-Christian hate promoted in the Qur'an

¤ treating people with respect and not seeking their death for choosing faiths and religions other than Islam

¤ treating women with respect and dignity, rather than the demeaning manner that Islam actually promotes against them

¤ being honest about the claims and lifestyle of the prophet of Islam, rather than seek to excuse them away

. . . and several other things.

I offer that these are some of the very pressing issues on the minds of people who are searching for real faith and authentic fellowship and service to God. I don't mean to be derogatory in any way to your convictions (and where you feel so, I offer my apology upfront). However, one cannot pretend that these issues don't exist and so we could go on and be silent about them. They are the core issues that define some of the very disturbing attitudes of people in the Middle East. And I've only just taken up a desire to join thousands who are putting in every effort to create awareness of some of these issues in hope that Muslims sincerely and objectively reconsider them.

belloti:
And do ever feel that you are being a little hard on some of us here that chose to respond to some of your malicious enquiries?
I just need some precise answers. Ma assalam

I'm usually told that when anyone tries to examine the claims of the Prophet of Islam, they're being malicious - or worse still, blasphemous. On the contrary, some of these people tend to be malicious themselves and fail to notice that in their entries until they feel uncomfy with responses from the other side of the divide.

However, I don't make it my aim to be hard on anyone, and that's why you would read a few lines where I offer apologies where people misread me. It's not my forté to be apologetic where people tend to be derisive, though. "Being hard" is one thing; exposing "the hard facts" of a system is quite another thing.

Belloti, I often try my best to be rational, but that not at the expense of anyone. Shalom.

belloti:
mr4malik am only asking why respond to mukina with my name? thats all am asking

Give it a rest if it's that problematic to you. mukina2 directly mentioned your name, and as a direct response to hers, one could hardly avoid taking her statement in full, especially when you had posted misrepresentations of issues. So there - you and mukina2 obviously didn't know what you were typing.

belloti:
Then ofcourse we ve learned how to live with people like you. i am stating points and i don't care how you interprete them but you seem to be reserving the monopoly of qualifying people into what category they belong. The Rasoul SAW said "Dont be angry". thats my only consolation.

You didn't sound like you've learnt to live with people like me, and I must be very fortunate that I'm not anywhere within your reach to put me to death for converting from Islam to Christianity. One of the points you stated was to call people you can't deal with "fools" - and you're only being rascally by pretending that one shouldn't care how we interpret that, as well as the several fallacies posted earlier - by you, of course. You didn't wait to franchise to yourself the monopoly of calling others fools, did you - and what 'category' was that?

You're doing a great job at controlling your anger, at least my head is still on my neck. Tell me, the 'Rasoul' wasn't angry at those whose murders he ordered because they were no "fools" for refusing to be misled by him??

carmelily:
it takes superhuman effort being civil with you, but i'll try.
i never cried wolf, if u read between the lines, it would have been obvious to you i was merely being sarcastic.

@carmelily,

Don't cry so hard if you don't know the meaning of the word 'civil'. I didn't say it, you did - you were being "sarcastic", and I read you quite well ealier. The civility you see in your sarcasm that you fail to see any semblance of civility in other people's attempt to discuss with you is underscored in almost all your posts. Try something else, because there's no "merely" in being "sarcastic", unfortunately.

carmelily:
and only God above knows where you read in my post that the jews were the colonial masters of the americans. i was just saying, if we want to give palestine back to the jews for historical reasons, we should be fair enough to hand the US back to the red indians for the same reason. if the latter's absurd, the former's even more so.

Go back and read your entry, and if you fail to see it, don't get a migraine for that. You obviously haven't understood the issues involved in the Israel-Palestinian trade-off that has spiralled out of control by the constant call for the annihilation of Israel by those concerned. But, of course, I respect your right to your opinion, only just be objective enough.

carmelily:
i may be dumb but i don't need a lebanese or palestinian telling me what's unfair. i think for myself unlike some people i know.

Actually carmelily, I don't read you as dumb and please don't try to convince me! Let's apply the rules both ways by respecting the rights of others to think for themselves.

babyosisi:
By the way America is a secular and not a Christian nation and they are not your problems,your problems lie within.

They won't ever see that, because they don't know what Christianity actually is. Often, they would rather cry hoo-ha at the West than tackle issues in Islam that is making their fellows in the Middle East to be so bellicose. Before the allied forces went to Iraq, was Saddam Hussein a Muslim? And was it American policy that made him kill his own people? That's just one example among the many that show that Muslims don't need any kind of political action from any part f the earth to turn upon themselves.

TayoD, were you reading my mind??

Hey you two - when are we expecting the bells? And please choose a good Cathedral, eh? _{preferably one far away from al the bombs!}

Okay, I was teasing ya both; so please don't take it personal. Enjoy.

belloti:
There are Instances In Islam where Killing the guilty party is justified. I expect you guys to have a little knowledge of Islam

On the one hand it is "haram"; but there are "instances" to justify the killings. . . huuuhhhh?

From the little knowledge of Islam that I have, it seems that just about anything that Muhammad didn't like was enough grounds to kill anybody. So, what makes a party guilty - Muhammad's personal vendetta against his own perceived enemies??

Taking the life of a person because he didn't like your religion is heinous - and to me there's no justification for that kind of thing.

firdaus4us:
If u can't give precise answer to all, then, why can't u become Muslim?

There may be over 6,000 questions for the Christian that I can't find precise answers for. However, there are more questions about the WE in the "Allah" of the Qur'an that is clearly polytheistic, and until you address that question of Allah joining partners with himself in the Qur'an, then you will never see the true light of who's actually fooling the Muslim mindset.

I was once a Muslim, but in answer to your question: "why can't u become Muslim?" my answers are:

1: I would rather be saved by the Messiah (the Christ - Jesus Himself) than put my faith in a prophet of Islam.

2. I would rather be righteous by the righteousness of the Messiah than choose the sinful life of Muhammad.

3. I would rather choose to let others live even if they are atheists or choose other religions than to seek their death
    because Muhammad said so.

4. I would rather be saved and know it for sure than to be as confused as Muhammad who wasn't sure what Allah
    would do to him in that day.

5. I would rather be made free from sin and pursue righteousness than follow a prophet who repented of sin more
    than seventy times in a day, and still wasn't sure of it so that he had to repent another seventy times everyday!

6. I would rather be chaste by the standard of Jesus Christ about marriage than be confused about fornication and
    sexual molestation of underaged children (it's called pedophilia).

7. I would rather be a man to one wife as Jesus prescribed than commit fornication and adultery by the "temporary"
    marriage contracts that Muhammad encouraged among his companions.

8. I would rather follow the chastity in relationships that Jesus offered, than subscribe to a prophet who received
   "revelations" as license to seek sexual pleasure by chasing all his own paternal and maternal cousins with clear
    unbridled lust.

9. I would rather maintain a stand for righteous living as Jesus Christ taught, than be appalled by the coitus interruptus
    the companions of Muhammad practiced while the Qur'an was being revealed!

10. I would rather find out the truth about Jesus Christ for myself by reading the Bible, than take the false claims in
      Muhammad's Qur'an as subsitute of what Jesus taught.

I could go on and on about this if you so require me to tell you more about why I cannot be a muslim. Not to mention again the polytheism so glaring in the Qur'an and excused away by Muslim apologists. But the facts stand out - I would rather be saved by the righteous Saviour, Jesus Christ my Lord, than put my faith in a prophet of "Islam" who was so violent that he was confessedly uncertain about his eternal destiny at the end of his career.

There - those are partly why I cannot be a muslim, regardless the attacks you ferret against Christianity.

@babyosisi,

Well, what could I say? One really could (and should, sometimes) empathise with the simple-minded Muslim who hates to see these matters (I know how it feels because I've been there before). There are so many Biblical events and narratives that the Qur'an seems to adopt, albeit with a recasting that twists the established accounts in the Bible. When I started reading the Bible with a mindset to "hunt out" perceived inconsistencies, I was awestruck at the simplicity, honesty and openness to scrutiny found in it than the Qur'an offers. It wasn't that easy to see the light, but all through the struggles in my heart, the God who speaks in the Bible was so patient and merciful as to forebear with all the nasty things I'd done previously. . . and then still wait to offer me His grace.



@firdaus4us,

Many thanks for your offer of those verses - they were in very fact some that I struggled with while still a Muslim. However, I would ike you to consider how I see them now that the scales have fallen off my eyes by God's true mercy:

firdaus4us:
And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116)

Could you please ask yourself just one question: Where did Muhammad get his idea from that Christians were worshipping Mary as part of the Trinity? Nowehere in history as far as I know, and the Trinity has always been the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (not Mary the mother!). I may not know how Muhammad got his summation that the Trinity comprised the Father, the Mother and the Son; but what I do know is that he was misled into believing his own made-up accusations against Christians that he couldn't even check out the facts of what true Christians believed.

firdaus4us:
"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (5:117)

How could we trust Muhammad's "revelation" to be true if he was wrong in the previous verse? I'm sorry, but if he was wrong in the preceding verse, it would be foolhardy to trust the subsequent verse.

Moreover, any account of the actual life, teaching and ministry of Jesus Christ should be obtained from the Bible, not the redaction found in the Qur'an. While Jesus ministered among men on earth, He was not merely a witness but the very incarnate Word who was the only begotten of the Father - see it for yourself:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14.

Indeed, Jesus in the Bible is the faithful witness (Rev. 1:5); but more than that, He is the divine Word who is Himself actually God incarnate -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. - Rev. 19:13.

This is what Muhammad tried to deny all through the Qur'an and his career - the deity of Jesus Christ, His divine Sonship, and His atoning and vicarious sacrifice and resurrection. Instead, Muhammad placed the death of Jesus Christ at the end of the world - and guess where? Not in the Qur'an but in the Hadith where he supposed that Jesus would die after destroying the antichrist and making Muslims of everyone. My question is - why would Jesus need to die at all at the end of the age after destroying the antichrist, and not possible for Him to have died and risen before even the emergence of the antichrist?

firdaus4us:
"If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise." (5:118)

I sympathise with your convictions; however, I've come to realise that a loving God is not all about "punishing servants" but showing mercy to His chosen. When Jesus spoke of believers, He elevated them from the mere estate of servitude to one of friendship - see again for yourself:

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. - John 15:15.

Isn't that wonderful - and is that not how one longs to know and worship God. . . without fear, ignorance and bias? Jesus wanted us to have that amazing love of His friendship, so that we could know the Father's loving heart, His amazing love, and His power to uplift, bless and establish people's lives in righteousness. That doesn't mean we cease being servants of God; but it does uplift our hearts to know that He loves us and is willing to declare the Father's heart of mercy to us, rather than a picture of "punishing servants".

firdaus4us:
God will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: God well-pleased with them, and they with God: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires). (5:119)

Thank God for that if you long for such a garden. However, I long for the divine Palace known as the New Jerusalem, the holy city, where the streets are paved with gold (Rev. 21:21). I'm sorry, but that's the choice I've made for the One who promised me that blessing and whose word is as sure as can be. I know in myself that nothing I do can get me there (and there are too many things that I'd done in the past); but this one thing quailifies a person for that place: to have one's name written in the Lamb's book of Life - see for yourself:

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
 - Rev. 21:23-27

Thank you again for your calm and amicable concern. But do please consider what I have been missing out on. . . until I became a Christian.

@carmelily,

i'd also like to add that there is a big difference between old testament jew, new testament jew, and the jews we have today.

and. . .

carmelily:
lesson 3: old testament jew=seed of abraham
new testament jew= every and anybody(OT jew, gentile, whoever) accepts the idea of "salvation through the blood of Jesus" as explained by Paul, the apostle.

This might be a new one on me, but I haven't seen the idea of an 'OT Jew' and a 'NT Jew' in the Bible. There's no distinction between an OT and NT Jew, for one is either a Jew or is not. Further, there are three classes of people delineated in God's Word in the present age in I Cor. 10:32 ~~

   (a) Jews

   (b) Gentiles (non-Jews)

   (c) the Church of God (believing Jews and Gentiles).

Now Christians are made up of that collective Body where "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal. 3:28, see also Col. 3:11). In the Body of Christ, God is not seeking to make Jews of people, but rather Christians made in the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29).

Perhaps, if at all there is such a notion as "OT Jew" as distinct from "NT Jew", there might as well be a case for "OT Gentile" as distinct from "NT Gentile". Is there?

There are so many verses like that in the Bible warning against blind obstinacy -

And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. - Ezek. 2:5.

And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house. - Ezek. 2:7.

In the claim that Islam is monotheistic, Muslims would have to answer the question as to who the "Allah" of the Qur'an was joining with himself in the use of 'WE' in matters of creation, prayer and worship.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
To the contrary, and in fact thats not what I said.

Of course not, because that's my own summation - viz, "There is nowhere that New Testament Christianity had a keeping of the Sabbath."

Bobbyaf:
It is very much biblical, because it was prophesied in Daniel 7 that men would "think to change God's set times and laws" in reference to the Beast or Anti-Christ. Constantine was merely a pre-cursor to the beginning of the beast age which began in the 6th century, AD538 to be exact.

God didn't have to wait until the 6th century for the age of the "beast" to begin (if there's anything like that), and what you've inferred in the Constantine issue is merely human conjecture. There are men who have always sought to change set times and laws, and Daniel 7 was not specifically in reference merely to Constantine in the 6th century, but rather an open prophetic declaration of the character of a declining age. Before Constantine emerged, the apostles warned us that "the mystery of iniquity" (II Thes. 2:7) was already at work in their own day in the 1st century; and that there were already many antichrists influenced by the 'spirit of antichrist' which was already in the world back then in the 1st century (I John 2:18 & 4:3). Constantine was a late comer in the scheme of things in the 6th century and he had no such power to change the Word of God.

Bobbyaf:
No man-made law can never supercede God's laws which are eternal. Civil laws however problematic they might appear to be to God's people, mean nothing to us, who know otherwise.

Thank God you know that.

Bobbyaf:
To the contrary there is an abundance of scriptural evidence that point to the fact that God still expects His people to honour His commands, and not the commands of men.

It is not just alone a matter of knowing that God's laws are eternal, but one has to carefully study the context of application in any reading to get a full picture of what God's Word says at any instance.

Bobbyaf:
You show me your evidences and I will be kind enough to show you mine.

I'd rather offer that 4get_me has done an excellent job on the issue, and you could harvest a rich collection of verses to the point from his entries. The following texts, bear out the fact that Christians are not under a law of a seventh-day Sabbath, for they usually gathered for worship on the first day of the week:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. - Acts 20:7.

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. - I Cor. 16:2.

The first day of the week signifies a new creation in contrast to the seventh day which would point to completion under an old creation. As Christians, we're not under a seventh-day observance code but rather a 'new creation' living which was enacted for us by the victory of the Lord Jesus Christ in His atoning work.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. - Col 2:16-17.

nuru:
22. Take not with Allah another object of worship; or thou (O man!) wilt sit in disgrace and destitution.

23. Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.

39. These are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not, with Allah, another object of worship, lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.

You guys should stop going round these confusions. Islam is not monotheistic, because if anyone reads the Qur'an with an open mind and heart, we see that what is expressly forbidden is the very thing that the "Allah" of the Qur'an sanctions. As long as the "Allah" of Islam is a "WE" and thus joins partners with himself in creation, prayer and worship, there's no talk of monotheism in that religion. QED.