₦airaland Forum

^^^ #shakes head & rolls eyes#

lol. Ok krayola. I would also like to say I dont know something or the other because I do not have an active experience therein, but what does knowledge really entail? viaro, pls consider a new thread on epistemiology. Lol

Now, back to this Topic.There's also a fundamental problem. What is NOTHING, really? Even vacuum is SOMETHING called vacuum. So, when we say something has been created from nothing, what do we mean? I think this problem reflects the finite nature of mankind: a child sees a glass empty of water and says it contains nothing, but an elder sibling says it is full of the air in it. So what exactly is nothing?

For the sake of generalization, even though I am a Christian, I will refer to the initial element of existence or sentience as the PRIME MOVER (i.e. For me, God. For some others, that first random occurence that got things going). I proceed.

I think NOTHING once existed, but no longer. It stopped existing when the Prime Mover stepped into action and thus defined existentiality. As such, only existentiality, so to speak, had to be created from nothing.

One may say NOTHING can only be defined at that point immediately prior to the first fruit of existentiality. But with that reasoning, the prime mover who declared the existentiality for non-nothing already existed asides nothing to be able to do so. Thus one may say there has always been NOTHING (else) and apart from the (expectation or preparation of the) prime mover; and NOTHING was the core, base material besides the prime mover, upon which the rules of existence of non-nothings was built by the prime mover.

my guy krayola! I agree with your post. Just as u said everything that exists has always existed in one form or the other, likewise i will say there are substances that do not exist, and will never exist. I do not refer to things that may yet exist but have not been revealed. I believe all that can exist and all that cannot exist were defined in an existentiality framework of a type. Its like setting up the law before handling a legal proceeding. So, when an invention or discovery is to be birthed, it didnt come out of NOTHING. It comes into existence because an initialization rule had been declared that allows it to exist.

My gist is that the universe appeared because the possibility of its existence had been made to appear earlier on. So it didnt come from nothing, so to speak. The only ultimate source with no source, by my submission, is God, who then made it possible for existence to occur. Or not.

@viaro: My answer to this question is kind of two-fold: YES something can come out of nothing, but it depends on how you define "nothing".

If you believe the Universe was spontaneously formed by a random uncontrolled process, then the answer is self-aware, the Universe [at least the very first Universe of sentience] came out of nothing (with reference to the spontaneity). But that leaves us with a question: where did the NOTHING come from? Or what is it NOTHING with respect to?

But if you believe the Universe was called into existence, I will refer to the Creator of the Universe as God. I believe at the onset of all things as they have been, God established an existentiality framework that ENABLED things to possibly exist or NOT exist. Built on that framework, the Universe was able to be brought into existence. So, do you see why I say it was brought out of "nothing" but not really "nothing"?

I sincerely hope you understand my point.

@Magz: it's painful that many women do not know what they have until it's too late. Cheer up, it will all work out fine!

Deut. 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

There's no mention of 'skirts' or 'trousers' in that verse. The substance of that injunction is that men and women should not confuse their gender appearances; and the motive is to discourage the lifestyles that may stem from such practices. Confusion of appearances lead to confusion of gender roles. Such lifestyles may include homosexual tendencies among God's people, which is another abomination (Lev.20:13); or gender roles confused altogether, in the family and society at large.

It is interesting that the dress-sense and fashion of the Old Testament people included the idea that men and women wore garments that had skirts. Notice the masculine pronouns used in Psa. 133:2 - "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments" and of Ezekiel: "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts" (Ezek. 5:3). So men wore garments that had skirts back then, but not in the sense of 'skirts' (a woman's garment which hangs down from the waist) as we understand them today. The skirts of Aaron's garment were simply in reference to the outer border of the priestly garments.

Several ancient and contemporary civilizations and cultures had and have clearly defined gender dress modes. Even today, the Scots are popular for their kilts (knee-length pleated skirt of tartan wool which is worn by men as part of the traditional dress of the Scottish Highlands). Other traditional dresses worn by both gender in some other cultures include (a) the sarong - skirt made from a piece of fabric wrapped around the body and fastened at the waist and worn by men and women in Malaysia and other Pacific islands; (b) the toga - loose draped garment worn by citizens of Ancient Rome; (c) robe - any long loose garment (including the gown); and other types like (d) the tunic - usually long upper garment worn by women, but for the men depicts loose-fitting garment often without sleeves and often belted: worn in ancient Greece and Rome.

Some believers assume that Deut. 22:5 is condemning women wearing trousers and men wearing skirts. However, that is not what Scripture indicates. As we have seen, the substance and motive for that verse is to discourage any confusion of gender identity and roles among people professing to belong God. There are professional vocations that require a dress code that include the idea of trousers worn by both men and women, such as civil and petroleum engineering (the overalls they wear in field of operation), and some military service posts. I remember during our NYSC orientation, some ladies wanted to make an issue out of the khaki trousers; they wear given the option of either following the call of orientation service or quit camp.

Of course, what you wear tells who you are. In the NT, women are particularly admonished to "be modest and sensible about their clothes and to dress properly" as befitting women professing to be godly. (I Tim. 2:9, 10). Men and women who profess godliness in their lives don't want to misrepresent their calling, and that's why we're admonished in the OT verse above to not mix up our dress sense to risk confusing our gender identity and roles, because "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

GBAM! GBAM!! GBAM!!!

The ONE question we should be asking here has to do with the decency of the person, and not whether its a skirt or a trouser. Some skirts are terribly indecent, and some trousers are far more decent than some skirts. And what with women having roles that are less passive, it is far safer for them to wear trousers.

Another teaser: Is it Biblical for women to wear skirts? Because the Bible asked them not to wear skirts, it was men's clothing in the days.

Philipsok:
Isn't it vivid 2 u dat they re deceiving us? Check dis 1, they told us dat God created adam&eve, den adam&eve had abel&cain. Cain later killed abel and cain went 2 d east of eden and met his wife. Who created d wife?[color=#990000][/color]

You need to have some background teaching in ancient Jewish customs. Women are not always mentioned unless they had a spectacular role in the mix of things. Adam and Eve obviously had other children, female, and Cain's wife (sister? niece? or grand-niece or whatever) must have travelled together with him to the East.

Cain did not marry anyone in the East (it is not said that he married there, but rather said that the wife got pregnant there), he went along with his wife. The AMPLIFIED version quoted below shows that it was one of Adam's offspring as well, which could be his sister, niece, grand-niece or some other complex in-law of sorts as can be obtained in such a very small and ingrown family.

When the Bible says that CAIN travelled to the East, I hope you know it does not mean the man Cain alone? Because the name CAIN will refer to him and his family, just like ISRAEL always referred to Jacob and his offspring even before they became a nation.

AMPLIFIED
Gen 4:16 So Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod [wandering], east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain's wife [one of Adam's offspring] became pregnant and bore Enoch; and Cain built a city and named it after his son Enoch.

KJV
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

The MESSAGE
Gen 4:16 Cain left the presence of GOD and lived in No-Man's-Land, east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 Cain slept with his wife. She conceived and had Enoch. He then built a city and named it after his son, Enoch.

Best Regards,
Mavenbox

NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].

viaro:
You know, when I read that post and saw how pregnant it was with substance, I lost a few inches of my height, psychologically speaking. That was rich, maven: and i've long become really scared at your insight. _{how you deciphered the coded msg between Krayola and viaro in the other thread is still a mystery though. .  and I shall find out soon.}

@Viaro: I'm glad you appreciate what I wrote, crazy as it all sounded, LOL. Thanks but I can't take that kinda credit, for there is a spirit in MAN and the inspiration of the Almighty God gives them understanding. I really like Lewis Carroll's writings (Adventures of Alice In Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, Jabberwocky, Hunting of the Snark, etc.) for one thing: they may not seem to make a lot of sense but when you read them carefully, they fill your head with ideas and somehow you get a hang of what is being discussed and the more you look at it, it keeps expanding and making more "sense" in other perspectives. So, sometimes, I write like that too. LOL. I even speak like that sometimes, and that is usually better understood than the writings because people cut me short and I explain as I proceed.

But seriously speaking, when I mentioned being a vardoger for Pilgrim, I meant it in the same light of John the Baptist coming in the spirit of Elijah, who I believe, just like Pilgrim, will still return and settle all this brouhaha. (Elijah returning? Yes, I believe, with Enoch. See Revelations 11:3-12)

As to you and Krayola's code, I must tell you that I'm terribly inquisitive, so, almost nothing passes me by. As such, anytime I see a post that contains a kind of secret message, I worry about it in my mind, squishing it around until I extract the meaning like a juice.

I am an aspiring writer so for those who are interested in reading the entire novella (flash fiction) I excerpted the whole fuzzy id gist from, it's titled "Living Lovely" and it's at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362357.0.html

@Chris: and for what reasons? Im just encouraging u all to think out of the box. SO WHAT IF IM VIARO, PILGRIM, KRAYOLA and NOETIC? Who cares? We are here to have great discussions and not to witchhunt identities and genders, matters that may only be of consequence in the romance/dating/family sections.

By d way, its very easy to run an entire thread of conversations all by yourself using various ids logged into various browsers at once. Its free drama.

@Tudor: Warrevah! Lol if u r upset u can leave d thread

this thread is dead, it died long ago at the hands of the nuclearboy who nuked em all. What we can all see now is the fungi sprouting from the debris.

"Economy of faith" is a teaching by one of my favourite men of God

@Viaro: there are many other things involved. I may say more if Ogaga, who is quite familiar with spirits, shows up here (ever since I gave him some hard-knock gist, he has been thinking about his present life. Very soon he will come back to LIFE)

@Tudor: Go siddon abeg. Some bodies of evidence are very abstruse, howbeit very admissible.

OH MY LOVE!!!!!!!

This thread is so much fun! Okay, let me help viaro out.

You guys bother too much about persons, when you should be more concerned with personalities. For all I care, anyone who is intelligent enough to have Nairaland MPD, each character as unique and different (as, say, e.g. Abuzola is actually DeepSight) and evade detection, is a genius. So when I communicate on NL, I DO NOT ASSUME. I dont assume gender, I dont assume personality, I take each person as they are. Unless KRAVIYAROLA (Krayola + Viaro, my dear friends that I love to tease). For all I know, everyone else on Nairaland may just be a set of 10 guys that have various personalities. The fun is not limited by WHO or WHAT im communicating with, even if a monkey with an incredibly high IQ is one of the frequent posters on the Religion section, I will enjoy his posts if they make this place lively. Now to my point.

Do you guys know what a vardoger is? Unlike the doppelganger, the vardoger is not sinister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vardøger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/doppelgänger

The vardøger or vardøgr is a spirit predecessor, from Norwegian folklore. Stories typically include instances that are nearly déjà vu in substance, but in reverse, where a spirit with the subject's footsteps, voice, scent, or appearance and overall demeanor precedes them in a location or activity, resulting in witnesses believing they've seen or heard the actual person, before the person physically arrives.

The word vardøger is a Norwegian term defined as "a premonitory sound or sight of a person before he arrives"

So I must confess that, unknown even to Pilgrim herself, I am her vardoger. People who have vardogers don't even know it, but as we all know, Pilgrim has been on a Pilgrim's Progress, and until she returns I was assigned to be her vardoger on Nairaland. I started out that way but I am much lazier than Pilgrim, so I got tired quickly and stopped making such posts.

So at least we have answered ONE question: Viaro is NOT mavenbox. mavenbox is not pilgrim, but pilgrim's vardoger. But the OTHER question: whether viaro is male or female, I cannot say. I think you need to ask Krayola that question.

After all, Krayola and Viaro are ONE. They either spend A LOT of time chatting with one another, or else they are best of friends, or else whenever Krayola looks in the mirror he sees Viaro.

Another possible complication that might be present is that of the mystery of Nicolas Bourbaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki), who everyone thought was a real human being who wrote various math textbooks, but was actually a name used IN COMMON by a group of elite Mathematicians. So, how do you know that each time you see a Mavenbox post, it is not even a different person?

Nicolas Bourbaki is the collective pseudonym under which a group of (mainly French) 20th-century mathematicians wrote a series of books presenting an exposition of modern advanced mathematics, beginning in 1935. With the goal of founding all of mathematics on set theory, the group strove for rigour and generality. Their work led to the discovery of several concepts and terminologies still discussed.

And then there is one last, lengthy explanation, I am including an excerpt of my new novella below. By Liebermansch hypothesis, maybe all of us : Mavenbox, Viaro, Krayola and Pilgrim are all fuzzy ids of an unknown NL person. Sorry it's long and many may not understand,

“You are in a complex tangle right now. The human nature is rather complicated, actually. For instance, in psychoanalysis, there are defined theories about the human id. It is the sum of the primitive instincts and energies underlying all the psychic activity of a human being. A certain Liebermansch hypothesis states that this id is not made of random instincts as we often believe, but rather it draws from a bank of experiences of a fuzzy id that is linked to the particular human being. This is why many have believed in reincarnation (as false as it is), and it also accounts for the common déjà vu in which one thinks their present situation has occurred before. Oh, yes it has.”

As it happened once in a while, Chinedu was talking over her head, and Lizzy looked more confused. But she was also very intelligent, and that was one of the things that had brought them together years ago. So he explained further in order to let her apprehend the meaning.

“Our each and every action, inaction, choice and decision generates a new path for our lives every moment. Within an hour, for example, in one person, millions of such paths are generated but only one is attained by the prime id, which is the id of the person on the particular path we are focusing on. For each of the other paths, a fuzzy id of the person progresses along the path, generating more fuzzy ids as it continues. The fuzzy id is like a surrogate , it carries the alternatives to the prime id’s selection and continues with it, acquiring knowledge and accumulating energy until a critical point is reached. This so-called critical point is a place where one or more paths intersect.”

“What this means is that at these critical points, one may willingly or mistakenly derail from a path and enter another path. Of course, the knowledge acquired and the energy accumulated will not balance out across all the paths, but the variation will afford similar opportunities. And then the human being ignorantly declares déjà vu or reincarnation, thinking an abstruse thing has occurred. But it’s not so, one or more of their fuzzy ids has gone through the experience before and at that time the prime id is exchanging information with each fuzzy id.”

“So is this a kind of alternate future then, in which you are not dead?” asked Lizzy.

“I was just coming to that part, Elizabeth. There is a strong link between human emotion, conscience and rational logic. As a result, over time, each particular fuzzy id has specialized in a particular emotion, is as objective as its gradually developed conscience, and as such makes decisions based on the attendant logic. At the critical points, the human being makes a choice and the newly elected prime id forces all the fuzzy ids into relegation for the moment. In rare cases, a chance of one in five billion, a renegade fuzzy id refuses to be forced into the background, and it usurps the prime id. Then the human being appears to be a one-track identity with a particular strong unquenchable emotion, the emotion’s associated conscience, and all the rational logic the conscience requires to operate.”

“In your case, Lizzy, your rage took over when we were at the well. You decided not to push me over into the well, but you have a fuzzy id that had grown very strong from murderous and evil thoughts that you had wallowed in since childhood without carrying them out. Your RAGE fuzzy id was stronger than your prime id, so after you made the choice, the fuzzy id derailed the path and usurped the prime id. If you think back, you will see that from that point, you have never been able to control your anger any longer. Think about all your victims…”

P.S> This post may earn me a vote on the "Most Senseless posts of the year" thread. LMAO.

@Adrenaline: the truth always protects me. In some cases, its in the form of my family, other times, strangers. Nature does it too, and spirits as well. The endpoint is that im never left without help because the life of God flows within me. Its called an open door, its a benefit of soteria, a consequence of my blood covenant with the God of Heaven, father of my Lord Jesus the Christ.

@toluxa1: Of course I read you, loud and clear. But then, tell me, was Paul not a pastor as well, a pastor of the pastors? A General overseer? That was why I said I weep in pidgin Aramaic. What makes Paul qualified, and yet telling others that it would be better if they could be celibate like himself, to attend to the ministry? Would that not make them disqualified by your rule above?

The simple truth is that marriage of the pastor has not been, and will not be, a criteria for the move of the Holy Spirit in any church.

1Co 7:7 Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me--a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.
1Co 7:8 I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me.
1Co 7:9 But if they can't manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single.

That was my point, and not that Paul was an elder.

P.S> I need to go now. I have a lot to say on this topic. Maybe when I return much later I will make my posts.

Cheers.

@toluxa:

Mary did not in anyway take up spiritual authority over the disciples or teach them. She simple delivered a message. (go to My brethren and tell them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.)

And about Mary, did it occur to you that THAT is the work of a pastor, to DELIVER the message for the time?

The only place where pastor occurs in the KJV is in Jeremiah
KJV Jer 17:16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

AMPLIFIED Jer 17:16 But as for me, I have not sought to escape from being a shepherd after You, nor have I desired the woeful day [of judgment]; You know that. Whatever I said was spoken in Your presence and was from You.

MESSAGE Jer 17:16 But it wasn't my idea to call for Doomsday. I never wanted trouble. You know what I've said. It's all out in the open before you.

which thus makes it clear that the duty of a pastor is that of a shepherd: lead the flock. How do you lead the flock? By having the right message (which is what translates to the direction they would follow. e.g. if Mary didn't deliver the message, how would the disciples resume their duty?)

I rest my case.

@toluxa1: I weep in pidgin Aramaic. If the leaders needed to be married with children, then Paul himself was disqualified. I hope you can see that the church in Ephesus was a peculiar church? As well as the one in Corinth? The peculiar bit about each church has to do with their idolatrous practices, which placed women in authority. For new converts from such practices, they may want to do the same with Christianity, and that was what Paul was warning against.

As a rule of thumb, whenever I want to verify the truth about God's Word in a matter, I use the two or three witnesses approach to establish the matter. If I find three witnesses (in this case, two other writers apart from Paul, or Paul in two other situations or circumstances) who said the same thing, then it's hook line and sinker for me. But that's my own view.

I served in Chanchaga local government, lived in Bosso, near the FUT, where I used to go and play chess and twack the students, and well, I used to lose and draw too but I won most times. LOL. Further details may not be discussed cos I like partial anonymity on NL.

@Adrenaline: LOL good job. Mavenbox doesn't need protection though, I always have it! What do you think the box in my name represents?

@Toluxa: Why have you refused to answer my question about Jesus' perspective?

By the way, how is Minna? I had my NYSC there years ago,

manmustwac:
[size=16pt]ABUZOLA WINS AND THERES NO CONTEST. HE COMES ON ONLINE AND POST NOTHING LESS THAN 100 E JIHAD POSTS. HE'S THE ONLY PERSON TO POST ANTI CHRISTIAN MESSAGES IN THE CHRISTIAN E WORSHIP THREAD AM EVEN TIRED OF DELETING HIS POSTS FROM THERE. [/size]

HEALTHY HAPPY LAUGHTER!!! LMAO, THIS IS HILARIOUS!

viaro:
Besides all this, has any Muslim woman thought of her role in that garden?

O boy, I have thought of that a number of times. The woman's role in such a garden is scary o! I mean, if similar to that of the guys, that would be very assaultive on each woman there, considering the bombardment of guys!
I'm sorry I speak in ignorance. Can a wise Muslim explain the answer to this conundrum?

@toluxa1: I stopped arguing on Nairaland two or three weeks ago. So, I have read what you said, but I want you to tell me your view about the last thing I said in my previous post, taking note of the fact that Mary was sent to MEN and not women and children:

Last question: What do you think Jesus would say about this topic, in respect of the fact that the first person HE sent with the gospel of His resurrection was actually a woman?

Quote
Joh 20:16  Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around she said to Him in Hebrew, Rabboni!--which means Teacher or Master.
Joh 20:17  Jesus said to her, Do not cling to Me [do not hold Me], for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to My brethren and tell them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.
Joh 20:18  Away came Mary Magdalene, bringing the disciples news (word) that she had seen the Lord and that He had said these things to her.

Please let us endeavour to take the word of God in context, the Holy Spirit will thus multiply our understanding by faith.

@Viaro: LOL You have forgotten that I and the Father are one. God is all around us. LMAO!

@OP: o boy, this thread didn't only derail, it hit an iceberg and has started sinking!

(Sigh of relief) Thanks people!

@Topic: Have three elder brothers. They can be annoying at times, but when the chips are down, they've got my back, and that's for shizzle!

@Maedan, Mamagee and M'ethanol (i.e. C2H5OH, I know its ethanol, but I had to use M for that one too  ):

Na wa o! I was just feeling in the mood to joke this evening, I meant it as a joke. What is it like to have a brother? I was coming here to joke about how someone was referring to her lover as a "brother" and then I found out it was a family question. That's why I said what I said.

My bad. Apologies on the assumed correctness. I am not like that at all.

?

What is this thread doing in Romance section instead of FAMILY section?

@OP: Go for the new one you met this afternoon

To all those knocking their heads against the wall arguing that women cannot lead a church, let it be known to you that in Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female. His agenda on earth is much bigger than the issue of gender and He will use any willing vessel, irrespective of gender.

Let the answer to this question be the final arbiter: Will God manifest His power in a church being led by a woman?

If the answer to that question is YES, then please let's stop all this nonsense arguments and get busy fulfilling God's calling on our lives. Afterall if God has no problem calling women to leadership positions in the Church and working through women in such positions, who are we to say women can't occupy those positions?

GBAM! GBAM!!

@toluxa1: haba! On another thread, I was just saying that you are speaking my mind. Not here, though!

And my own piece: I think the women in the early church days, as addressed in Timothy and Corinthians, were very troublesome and noisy and were causing distractions.

AMPLIFIED
1Co 14:34 The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says. [Gen. 3:16.]

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Understanding the LAW that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 14:34 is hinged upon understanding Gen 3:16 above. As many of you guys as have argued with a woman know that a woman has a terrible way with arguments and nagging when she believes she is right. That is what the boldened part of Gen 3:16 refers to, and Paul was concerned about such things raising their heads in the church.

Of course, in today's world, women have been known to take up highly valued responsibilities in the society and still act objectively. It was not so in those days. Never forget that these are the end times, and even if God needs to speak through trees and rocks, he will. So, how about women, then?

That is why, I believe, Paul said that those things to Timothy, pastor at Ephesus, and the Corinthian church, both very young and relatively unstable churches.

Last question: What do you think Jesus would say about this topic, in respect of the fact that the first person HE sent with the gospel of His resurrection was actually a woman?

Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around she said to Him in Hebrew, Rabboni!--which means Teacher or Master.
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, Do not cling to Me [do not hold Me], for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to My brethren and tell them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.
Joh 20:18 Away came Mary Magdalene, bringing the disciples news (word) that she had seen the Lord and that He had said these things to her.

Please let us endeavour to take the word of God in context, the Holy Spirit will thus multiply our understanding by faith.

It doesn't matter.

The MESSAGE

Mar 2:27 Then Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made to serve us; we weren't made to serve the Sabbath.
Mar 2:28 The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath. He's in charge!"

King James

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

AMPLIFIED

Mar 2:27 And Jesus said to them, The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath; [Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14.]
Mar 2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

toneyb:
Islam exist ONLY as an opposition to Judaism and Christianity. Mohamad the founder of the religion and his cronies that later wrote down or complied the Koran after long his death used books from the bible and those other books that were banned from the bible to create a new religion whose main purpose was to oppose that already establish Christian religion which was the religion of the Imperialist Roman empire at that time, He also borrowed the Ideas of ancient Greek philosophers and scientist at that time. There is nothing in the Koran that is original and was not plagiarized from other sources.

Mohamad wanted to create his own movement and then came up with his own idea by using the already extablished religion of the Christians and the Jews to propagate his own propaganda and agenda. He could not destroy the already established religions so he worked through them and went against their basic premise(most especially that of Christianity). The creation stories in the koran were plagiarized from the Book of Adam and Eve a book that did not make it into the christian cannon and was discarded by the catholic church. The fall of Satan story found in the Koran was also plagiarized from the same book. The story about the non crucifiction of Jesus was obtained from other second centuary ananymous writings of others who did not believe in the stories that the Christians were propagating at that time . The scientific passages in the koran was plagiarized from the early greeks, the writers of the koran copied their writings including their mistakes about science and put it there in the koran. You just have to give it up for Mohamed he was really a very clever guy like the founders of all other religions. Moses, Paul, Buddah etc

GBAM! The first time toneyb says something I agree with, rather than (I mean, as well as ) attacking something else I disagree with

Quote from: olabowale on December 03, 2009, 12:16:08 AM
Even in the time of Noah, the world was rejuvenated anew with us that are here, now from the remnant of what went with Noah in the Vessel. And we say many Messengers and Prophets came after him. Now, just to drive home the proof with Jesus, apart from the fact that Jesus was a limited people messenger and prophet, he Jesus prophetised that a Comforter shall arrive on the stage of humanity. That Comforter was Muhammad (AS). Surah Imran spoke about it, while Surah Saffa verse 6 confirmed it, by jesus declaring that he was to speak about OT valid as a document not to be abrogated by his people and that a Messenger (Comforter, a human being having the Spirituality from God) of God shall appear with the name Ahmad!

toluxa1:
It always sounds funny to me when Muslims say this. Now let me show you this. This is what Jesus said.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.



1. the Comforter will abide with them “forever.” Mohammad did not live then, and could not do this – be with them. Now that he has come and gone, he is not with anyone forever.


2. The Comforter is the Holy Ghost, not a man, who will “teach all things.” No man knows “all things,” only God.


3. The Comforter is a Spirit of Truth. Mohammad was a man, not a spirit.


4. Jesus had to leave so that the Comforter could come. That implied he was coming soon after Jesus left. Also, Jesus said that HE was sending the Comforter. Mohammad never claimed that Jesus sent him.



You guys are absolutely desperate to convince the world that Muhammad was prophesied in some way. It's funny that they will use the Bible, a book they say is corrupt, to very weakly find some proof of Muhammad. There is no way that refers to Muhammad, who denied Jesus and put himself above Jesus.

Does anyone actually believe God would leave us alone for over 600 years and then send such a poor excuse of a "prophet" to follow The Christ? It's unbelievable.

God Bless.

Now, I'm liking this Toluxa guy. He sounds like me, without getting exasperated while doing it, like I always do,