₦airaland Forum

@ posakosa

I have been quite busy.
Howdy?


@ tpia

I am suprised at ur assertion but not disappointed. Whats d similarity between me and banom?

muhsin:
Assalamu alaikum,

[center]
Narrated By Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "Whoever has eaten garlic or onion should keep away from us (or should keep away from our mosque)."

Bukhari - Volume 7 - Book 65 - Hadith 363[/center]

are onions from satan?  mohammed comes across as ridiculously IGNORANT. how could he have said the above haddith? 

mazaje:
Here is the original picture. . . from where these lairs for jesus photoshoped their lying picture from. . . . It is the skeleton of a new 60-foot-long plant-eating dinosaur called Jobaria

[img]http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/photos/expedition/excavation-sm.jpg[/img]

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/photos/expedition/

and when the fallacies of ur assertions are revealed. . . . .u start screaming "HELP!!! I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST"

I find this thread amusing.

@ Deepsight

me thinks u need to learn to accept that ur world view is not the same as the world view of others.

ilosiwaju:
you just gotta love noetic, xtianity and jesus. the following paragraph is from Ann Bessant's Freethinkers' textbook.

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history is their extreme paucity; the very
existence of Jesus cannot be proved from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star
which guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of a town within the Roman Empire by
command of a subject king; a teacher who heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who
raises the mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in triumphal procession, without
opposition from the Roman legions of Cæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own
countrymen, and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by Roman law; a three
hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number
of ghosts wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and appearing to a crowd of
above 500 people; a man risen from the dead ascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in
the broad daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events took place, we are told, and
yet they have left no ripple on the current of contemporary history.

my problem with the assertion and quote above is that . . . , .while we welcome ur opinion on issues, u are reluctant to accommodate "faith" inspired opinions. , .simply because u consider them dogmatic, not forgetting that ur opinions too are dogmatic.

The quote above chooses to disbelieve the gospel on the basis of sarcasm . . . . . . .what happened to the liberty of believing the gospel?

something keeps telling me noetic knows and acknowledges most of deep sight's insights(pun intended) but you guys gotta give him some breathing space, i mean you dont expect him to agree with you(at least not publicly on nairaland) besides, thats what faith is all about.abi?

no pun or offence intended. . but deep sights posts came across as ridiculously dogmatic. I had no reason to ponder over anything he stated.
what did u deduce from his posts?

talking of morsels for noetic, i have a few ones:
1. A roman method of executing condemned criminals becomes the symbol of the world's largest religion. right? craze world!
2. Substitute the french guillotine for the roman crucifixion, churches should be filled with the killing devices hanging everywhere, imprinted on bibles, hanging on your neck as a pendant.
3. Double-header: if jesus had died of malaria for example, would his death still suffice for the salvation process? would it not be fair to have mosquitoes being framed in churches instead of the cross?

the above are innuendos that only have a place in the thoughts of the ungodly.

[quote author=Riff-Raff link=topic=342215.msg4794836#msg4794836 date=1256426170]@ kolaxy/post
There is no Heaven, u have been brain washed.
@ Tudor
Thumbs up.[/quote]and where is ur proof?

abulbanaat:
I want to be gentler with you O Noetic. Okay let see what you have said:

You wrote: “I am not impressed. . .these lies have been in circulation for a very long time.”

I say: You cannot be impressed with what Shakerz has brought because you deliberately closed your eyes to the truth. So the Word of Allaah can be used against you:

“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether You (O Muhammad Sal-Allaahu 'alayhe Wa Sallam) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allâh's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.” [Q2: 6-8].

The verses I brought may not interest you because of what you said below:


“start by answering the questions in my first post.”

I say: And what was that?

You wrote in your that post:

“a. who was the allah that mohammed's father was serving?”

If by Muhammad’s father you mean ‘Abdullah’ then open your eyes and your heart (I am not going to lose hope on you).
Literally ‘Abdullah’ means ‘Slave of Allaah’ by that you may not be wrong in saying that he was serving Allaah. You asked who was that Allaah that he was serving because then the message of Islam, a supposed message of monotheism, you will say, had not come, then why was Abdullah, the father of the Prophet of Islam named so if truly that Allaah was not an idol (purified is the Mighty Lord from such an evil ascription)?

Shakerz had brought some works of your Christian theologians to debunk that but you were not ‘impressed’ by them because you have your hidden motive.

Well Shakerz had brought those materials from Christian point of view (may Allaah the Most Sublime reward him for that), I will give you the Islamic version, so sit back Noetic and enjoy it:

The Arabs before Muhammad had believed in a Supreme being called Allaah, the Qur’aan testifies to that:

“And if You (O Muhammad Sal-Allaahu 'alayhe Wa Sallam) ask them: "Who has created the heavens and the earth," they will certainly say: "Allâh." say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allâh!" but Most of them know not.” [Q31: 25]

If the Arabs did not believe so they would have said the Prophet was telling a lie. And do you say an idol can create the heaven and the earth? If you say yes, I see the heaven falling on you.

And when the Qur’aan says:

“Do You feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh), will not Cause the earth to sink with you, Then behold it shakes (as In an earthquake)?
Or do You feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allâh), will not send against You a violent whirlwind? Then You shall know How (terrible) has been My Warning?” [Mulk: 16-17].

Noetic, don’t you think that if Allaah is not truly in the Heaven the Arabs would say O Muhammad stop it, Allaah is there in Ka’bah.

And if you are not satisfied yet, Noetic you will agree with me that if Allaah were an idol, then He ought to be seen, but the Qur’aan says:

“Such is Allâh, Your Lord! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the Right to be worshipped but He), the Creator of All things. so Worship Him (Alone), and He is the Wakîl (Trustee, Disposer of affairs, Guardian, etc.) over All things.
No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over All vision. He is the Most Subtle and Courteous, Well­Acquainted with All things.” [Q6: 106-107].

Vision can definitely grasp an idol, all idols of this world have their pictures with people (very unfortunately our noble Prophet Jesus Christ has been made an idol too, but Allaah will save him on the Day of Resurrection) it is only the Mighty Lord Allaah that you cannot have His Picture. Will you now understand O Noetic?

And if Allaah were an idol (I seek refuge in Allaah from that), the Arabs would have told Muhaamad that stop it we see him every day at Ka’bah or what a view.

And see the description of Allaah below and see whether it fits an idol:

“Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the Right to be worshipped but He), the ever living, the one who sustains and protects All that exists. neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. to Him belongs whatever is In the heavens and whatever is on earth. who is He that can intercede with Him except with his Permission? He knows what happens to them (his creatures) In This world, and what will happen to them In the Hereafter . and they will never compass anything of his knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursî extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue In guarding and preserving them. and He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursî.]” [Q2: 255].

Can an idol be so described O Noetic?

So the father of our dear Prophet was called Abdullah because the Arabs in his time still have a faint sense of monotheism in them in that they knew Allaah was the Supreme Being

It is this Allaah that sent all the Prophets: Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

“Verily, we have inspired You (O Muhammad ) as we inspired Nûh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; we (also) inspired Ibrâhim (Abraham), Ismâ'il (Ishmael), Ishâque (Isaac), Ya'qûb (Jacob), and Al­Asbât [the twelve sons of Ya'qûb (Jacob)], 'Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yûnus (Jonah), Hârûn (Aaron), and Sulaimân (Solomon), and to Dawûd (David) we gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

And Messengers we have mentioned to You before, and Messengers we have not mentioned to you, - and to Mûsa (Moses) Allâh spoke directly.

Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning In order that mankind should have no plea against Allâh after the Messengers. and Allâh is ever All­Powerful, All­Wise.” [Q4: 163-165].

See it Allaah spoke to Moses directly! Was that the idol of the Arabs?

I wish Allaah open your heart to the truth.

And your second question:

“b. why did allah stop using anointing oil and stopped accepting priestly sacrifices?”

I can tell you I don’t understand what you are saying, and you yourself do not understand yourself (that can be a form of insanity), please can you explain yourself further.



“allah is an arabian idolic demon rebranded by mohammed.”


I think with the foregoing you should be ashamed of yourself for writing that.

Hope to hear from you, Noetic my newest.

can anyone make sense of the above post?

Purist:
@noetic15

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself again.  Engaging you in a debate could really be frustrating.

Your shenanigan will not work this time.  I asked a simple question, a very perspicuous one at that, and you're attempting to dribble around with words by questioning me in return?  In case you missed it, here's the question again:    How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

why is it so hard to understand?
The love of one's neighbour as directed by the bible is preceded by the love and acknowledgement of God. how then can u show "LOVE" without knowing God (Jesus)?
ur understanding of love id vastly different from what the bible preaches. love as described by the bible is based on the notion of knowing God, . . this is not rocket science.

When you created that thread to apologize, I knew well enough that it was just another sanctimonious display that I'm quite familiar with on this forum.  I've been on Nairaland long enough to know the kind of games people play here.  About 2 years ago, it was osisi apologizing to the Muslims "for her harsh words".  Barely a week after her "apology", she resumed her Islam bashing.

Now back to your question.

It's not a dumb assertion.  Heck, it's not even an assertion.  It's a fact.  You may do yourself some good by reading up on the biography of Gandhi.  He acknowledged the messages of Christ on LOVE and PEACE MAKING, applied those teachings to liberate his country from British rule, but he refused to be a Christian.  It's just like me accepting some of Buddha's wise teachings, but refusing to be a Buddhist.  How is that a dumb thing?

1. do u understand simple english?
I apologised for attacking anyone. . .but I did NOT apologise for my views. why is that hard to understand? and what has that got to do with this thread?

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to practise the teachings of Christ without acknowledging the divinity of Jesus. Ghandi rejected Jesus. why is that so hard to sink in?

Deep Sight:
Kunle, let's fashi, the guy is too deeply lost in his dogma to get it.

what is this?

u are yet to make ANY analysis on ur beliefs. . .and u dare accuse me of being dogmatic
have u ever seen urself in a mirror?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=342215.msg4790888#msg4790888 date=1256376688]I'm sorry but I wouldn't wanna be part of a heaven where good people like Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Princess diana, -who have done so much for humanity- are denied access but theives, rogues and liars like Pastor EA Adeboye and Bishop David Oyedepo are given right hand seats. . . .just can't![/quote]Good choice. ur place awaits u in HELL!!!!

I hope u enjoy it

shakerz:
abulbanaat i saved you precious time from having to even debate this boy. I rarely botheres with the Muslim sources but most of them are actually coptic Christians who laugh at his face if he ever mentioned that Allah is a demon God, amazing how western Christian are ignorant about their Semitic roots. Jesus wasnt a Nigerian or a white man, he was an Arab/jewish looking man who resembled Osama Bin Laden :p


Close this thread up, i think my work has been done.


"among his signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it is him ye wish to serve."

can anyone make sense of the above?

shakerz:
Last the last punch in the Gut of Nioletic, here is an interesting article by a Christian refuting the notion of Allah being a separate Diety or being a demon God.



"1- The Name of Allah is the name of the true God:

a- The Moslems worship the true God who has been the God of the Ancient and New Testament. They confess that "in order to be a good Moslem, you have to be a good Jew and a good Christian", a statement of confessing to the truth of the other two religions.

b- The name of Allah was taking by the Moslems from the Christians who existed five centuries before the arrival of Islam. Arabs were mentioned in the book of Acts at the time of the Pentecost."

On the liguistic formation of Allah:

"- The Name of Allah is the same as the name of Elohim:

a- In the Semetic languages Vowels do not count. Consonants form the words. These consonants are not written because they are not important and they do make the word sick and ill. So if we look at the name of Allah and the name of Elohim we will find the following:

Allah = L + H, Elohim = L+H+M (we will ignore the M and come back to it later).

b- In the Semetic languages, word roots are formed of three letters. It was found later on that these three letters were formed of two two-letter verbs. A complete study was made by several scholars among which is Fr. Marmarji S.J. in Lebanon.

c- L+H= LH (pronounced 'lahh') means "to him". God, Allah or Yahweh is not the name of God, Allah and Yahweh. God is not the name. He exists and no one knows his name. If we know His name then we will possess Him and understand Him, then He is not God the Omnopotents the Existant etc,

d- So instead we say "to Him" be the glory. "To Him" be the praise Look at the book of Revelation 5:13: Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. It is safe to say that instead of saying God you can say "To Him"

e- Till our present day, Christians and Moslems replace the name of God with "Taala" (pronounced 'Tah-ah-lah') the excelsior, the most high."

I am not impressed. . .these lies have been in circulation for a very long time.
start by answering the questions in my first post.

shakerz:
Instead of using Muslim arguments, ill be objective and show what christian scholarships tell us now


Rick Brown in an article entitled "Who Is "Allah"?" in the International Journal Of Frontier Missions - a well-known missiology journal - which appeared in the summer of 2006, addressed the issue of various claims concerning Allah by his fellow Christian brethren. He starts by saying in the beginning of his article:


"Much of the anger expressed in the West has taken the form of demonizing the Islamic religion, to the extent of accusing Muslims of worshipping a demon. A key element of this attack has been the claim of some that the name Allah refers to a demon or at least a pagan deity, notably the so-called "moon god." Such claims have even been made by scholars who are reputable in their own fields but who are poorly acquainted with the Arabic language and Middle-Eastern history. The Kingdom of God, however, is never advanced by being untruthful, so this matter bears further investigation."

on whether Allah is the name of a demon or have rooted in paganism

"Suppose for the sake of argument that the ancient Arabs did worship the moon. This would have no bearing on the name Allah, for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names"

Imad Shehadeh from Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary refuted Morey's claim of Allah originally being the Moon-god of Arabia using textual, lexical, historical and theological evidences

"A recent popular theory asserts that Allah was originally the moon god worshiped in Arabia before and during Muhammad's time. According to this theory, when Muhammad came on the scene, the Ka‘bah contained 360 idols, among which was the moon god called 'ilah, or "a god." Then it is said that Muhammad declared this moon god to be the chief god and called it 'al 'ilah by adding the article 'al to 'ilah, thus yielding the meaning "the god.", Morey, who is foremost in popularizing this theory, cites many references from encyclopedias, dictionaries, works of philosophy and history, as well as various writers. However, though there is little doubt about the existence of moon god worshiped in Arabia before and during Muhammad's time, there are several weaknesses with identifying this moon god with Allah. In fact Muhammad initially adopted the name "Allah" as it was used by the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians of his day in referring to the true God of the Bible. This assertion is based on four factors: textual, lexical, historical, and theological"("Do Muslims And Christians Believe In The Same God?)

what do the majority of scholars say

"d in the journal Christian Century recently. The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God was dealt with by Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars. They all reached the same conclusion that both Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God albeit they differ on the nature of God."

As a note here it would be interesting for you too look into the thousands of claims of coptic Arabic christian going back before Islam who say Allah is the one true God and as a consequence it is all over their bible.

what is the relevance of the above to the historical origin of the idolic allah?

shakerz:
I don;t see why you need to even start a topic of this nature, considering that now it has been historically established that the very foundation of Pauline Christianity is a theft from Mithra---the true dying man paganistic myth who came to save the people from their sins, sounds similar?

If you want to begin an investigation on who is Allah, the history of the name, the semantics, let us start with these videos that are on youtube by Jews and Muslim. No theory is as dead as the Moon God assertion.

When you type in God in the standard Aramaic lexicon here is the answer

"Meaning:God
Pronunciation: (Eastern) AaLaH


Look like Jesus was worshipping Allah and called his lord as such , he didnt use the word Lord or God. Not a good argument to put forward.

NOW here is a vidoe that completely distroys the moon god assertion(most christian abadon the theory)

here are three videos since am objective dubunking your assertion

from a jew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_l3wmMSJcU

here is another aramaic jewish speaking guy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3XUNwPcIZg&feature=related

Here is another video that totally destroys the Moon GOD assertion made by a white dude


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4rYO_4JDE

See all different perspectives

do u through this acknowledge that the koran is meaningless without any meaningful insights? else how do u explain the fact that all ur "sources" are from youtube
did allah inspire youtube too?

KunleOshob:
I beleive the answer to the highlighted question above was answered by the master himself in the passage below:

Mark 12:1-12:
1 Then Jesus began teaching them with stories: “A man planted a vineyard. He built a wall around it, dug a pit for pressing out the grape juice, and built a lookout tower. Then he leased the vineyard to tenant farmers and moved to another country. 2 At the time of the grape harvest, he sent one of his servants to collect his share of the crop. 3 But the farmers grabbed the servant, beat him up, and sent him back empty-handed. 4 The owner then sent another servant, but they insulted him and beat him over the head. 5 The next servant he sent was killed. Others he sent were either beaten or killed, 6[b] until there was only one left—his son whom he loved dearly. The owner finally sent him, thinking, ‘Surely they will respect my son.’
   7 “But the tenant farmers said to one another, ‘Here comes the heir to this estate. Let’s kill him and get the estate for ourselves!’ 8 So they grabbed him and murdered him and threw his body out of the vineyard.[/b]


As per the truth of the Gospel Jesus preached, i would suggest you go back and study his teachings in the Gospels all over again with an open mind. I believe the truth would be revealed to you if you truly seek it.

how so convenient. u simply refused to answer any of my questions. . . . .how helpful is that?

KunleOshob:
And how do the scriptures quoted above justify your conclusion that "there is no love outside of Christ" I really do appreciated your passion for the christian faith, but in your over zealousness you are getting it all wrong. You really need to open your mind and study the teachings of christ properly and in a broader context for you to truly understand, don't just take doctrine or church interpretation and run with it.

u are yet to explain to me what EXACTLY I am getting wrong and how?

Purist:
How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

The kind of love Mahatma Ghandi had for his people can only be next to the love Jesus showed and preached while on earth. Mahatma Ghandi himself admitted that he employed the teachings of Jesus in the peaceful stuggle that led to the independence of India, as exemplified in his constant insistence on non-violence. But of course, according to you, because he didn't die a Christian, he's currently burning in hell.

1. why dont u educate me? what does it mean to love ones neighbour as directed by the bible? is this commandment alien. . . .does it stand alone as an absolute?

2. what a dumb assertion Ghandi employed Christ's teachings but refused to accept Christ's salvation what rubbish is this?

when did youtube become the "authentic koran"?

whats the summary of ur video?

fake doctor

pass

Abuzola:
All mankind

so satan is the mucus in ur nose?

you are both terrorists . . . . , whats the difference?

Another fraudster

Obalende:
no mazaje, abozulu, etc

"I did not ask to be created, so I am not responsible for my actions." It continues - "for had I had a choice, I would have chosen not to be created thereby avoiding sin, temptations, persecutions, sufferings or hell." Whats your view - support with Bible. Any atheist post will incur divine curses upon the person - this is a respectful healthy debate.

this implies that there is someone to whom u are accountable to. . . .why not surrender to His will?

@ KunleOshob

A. Do u (kunle) believe that Jesus died and rose? Yes i do.
B. Do u (kunle) believe that (A) is the basis and centre of Jesus mission on earth? No, his primary mission on earth is to teach the truth of God's will and love to mankind.

Thank u for ur response. I would however like to know what the "TRUTH" of Jesus gospel was. what was the truth about? was it the same message primordial prophets have preached? why would Jesus have to come and deliver the message Himself? why did he not just send a prophet?

C. Do u (kunle) believe that without believing in event (A), one can make heaven? Belief in event (A) is not taught as a condition to mak heaven anywhere in the bible.

have u ever come across John 3:16-17 and 1 corth 15:14-21 ? what do these verses tell u?

D. Do u (kunle) believe in the salvation of Jesus? I do believe in the salvation of Jesus, but the problem is that your understanding of the salvation concept of Jesus gospel is different from mine. Belief in Jesus is belief and obeying his teachings/commandments which goes deeper than the shallow belief that he just came and died. This is very clear from the scriptures, however the church has obscured to true meaning of salvation. You nee to open your mind read the scriptures again from scratch and let the holy spirit feed your spirit whilst you divorce your mind from popular pulpit gibberish.

can u shed more light and educate me on ur understanding of the salvation of Jesus? I want to understand what u understand as the salvation of Jesus?

@ m_nwankwo
Let me start by commending ur inherent ability to intelligibly present ur thoughts and analyses. Though I disagree with ALL your assertions, I must however commend ur tenacity, conviction and intellectual strength to present and defend ur beliefs. I commend u because, u are the ONLY one who I have debated on this forum (in the past two years) who was bold enough to produce an explicit analyses of his thoughts, beliefs and convictions regardless of how disagreeable they sound. Let me add that while I disagree, I also find ur points unconvincing though salient.

No, I did not disregard the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. I only stated that salvation and remission of sins do not lie in his death but in the word of God that he brought to humanity. I also stated that the death of of the physical body of Jesus was murder and an outrage against the will of God. If it is the will of God that Jesus will die, why then did Jesus pray to his Father for the cup to pass away. How can Jesus who is a son of God, a part of God the Father pray that the cup should pass away if the cup (his death) is the will of God. Even on earth, Jesus is one with God the Father and knows with clinical precision what is the will of his Father. That he prayed in Gethsemani is a clear evidence that his death is not the will of God. Jesus knew that his subsequent death is as a result of the free will of men under the influence of Lucifer, the antichrist. Jesus prayed in Gethsemani to recieve the strength from God the Father so as to pass through the gruesome physical torture and subsequent murder with equananimity and imperturbtabilty. If it is the will of God for Jesus to die, Why then did Jesus ask his Father to forgive those who orchestrated and executed his death? Do you ask for forgiveness when you do the will of God? or you ask for forgiveness when you disobey the will of God? Yes his death has spiritual implication but not they way you see it. Indeed the whole creation was outranged, that even the elements shouted in protest. When the sun darkens and the holiest of holies is torn, it is actually signs of estrangement from divinity rather than reconciliation. By your train of thought, Judas, the high priests, Caiphas and others were doing the will of God as they plotted and finally executed the physical body of the son of God. Again another crude analogy may suffice. Ones wife and kids are trapped in a burning house. The intesity of the inferno was so much that fire fighters, neigbours lacked the courage to go in for they fear that they may die in the process. As the husband looked at the inferno and the incapability of the fire fighters and neighbours, the deep love for his wife and kids silenced all fear and out of this love, the husband stepped forward to save his wife and kids even though he is aware that he may die in the process. Couragiously he moved into the burning house and succeded in saving his wife and kids from the ranging inferno. Sadly he suffered fatal burns and died shortly afterwords. It is correct to report that he entered the burning inferno out of love for his family. It is correct to report that he entered the burning house to save his family. It is correct to report that he died in the process of saving his family. It is absolutely wrong to say that he entered the burning house to die and his death is what saved his family. I hope you may be able to relate this analogy to the mission, death and resurrection of the son of God.

1. What is the essential message of God that the prophets sould not deliver, that the Son had to come and deliver Himself? If the message of Christ was just the "TRUTH" like u love to illustrate then one would wonder why John the baptist could not deliver that message or why there was no prophet recorded in the scriptures between malachi and mathew, which was a period of 400 years. One had to wonder what was so unique about the message and physical manifestation of God that the prophets could not deliver.
before the advent of Jesus, there were many prophets with innumerable works and miracles. Some included Elisha, Elijah and moses. This simply implies that the miracles of Jesus could not have been the unique issue about Jesus.
You would agree with me that the unique point of Jesus visitation was His message. but the content of that message is what we both differ on. It is in light of this that I state that ur analogy above about the death of Jesus does not hold water. I would like to reiterate here that the core message of Jesus was His death and resurrection as defined by the love He commanded. On these basis I make the following assertions.

a. The death of Jesus was the will of God.
# The prayer of Jesus in the garden was very simple. that the will of God be done. To suggest that Jesus died outside of God's will is to suggest that His prayer in the garden was not answered. . .what then is the basis of the xtian/beliver's prayer.
# His coming, death and ressurection was long prophesied long before the principal actor in His murder/crucifixion was born. His death was prophesied hundreds of years before Judas was born, before the priests were born and before the castigators were born. fro where did these prophecies come from? they came from God and God's will alone was done.
# Jesus gave several hints that He was to be killed. And He also illustrated on several occasions that His victory over death would be the basis of the new covenant. He said that "break this temple, and I will raise it in 3 days" . . . . .he was refering to himself. He mentioned severally in Luke 22:22 Luke22:53 and mathew 26:53 that He was to be betrayed and would die. I believe that Jesus was aware of His death and this death was the will of God.
# Apostle Paul would later state that If Christ did not die or ressurect, that there would be no basis for Christianity. This message implies that the crux of the xtian faith and hope lies solely in the divinity of Jesus as expressed on the cross and His ressurection.

b. The blood of Jesus wipes away sin.
I understand that ur position might be influenced from the bastardization of the blood of Jesus by the present day church, but ur position is very far from the truth.
The blood of Jesus is an integral and essential part of the gospel, and as a matter of fact, this is the ONLY thing Christ wants the church to do in remembrance of Him by drinking the wine as done in the last supper and repeated as a holy communion in churches all over the world.
To understand the import of this blood, one needs to understand the primordial process through which sins were forgiven as ordained in the laws of the prophets. as a matter of fact, there was NO remission of sins as written in the laws of moses. offenders were usually stoned to death or excommunicated. This was the state of things before the coming of Jesus.
how then does one explain the confidence of jews like peter and paul who were conversant with the laws of moses, that their sins were forgiven? these were people who had believed all their lives that the wages of sin is PHYSICAL death. . .only now to turn around and not only to proclaim forgiveness but the right to live till eternity.
The blood of Jesus is the MOST crucial part of the message of Jesus. In that blood is the right to overcome sin and attain pardon.
Except for the death and resurrection of Jesus including His immaculate birth the gospel of Jesus holds no uniqueness in the context of previous prophets.

c. As far as ur above analogy is concerned, the man who went into the fire took a rist out of love. but ur analogy is porous for several reasons.
# Jesus knows the beginning from the end. As such could not have gone into the fire without knowing the outcome. So if Jesus went into the fire and died in the fire, then He knew of it and as such approved of it.
# The crucifixion of Jesus was ordained from the foundation of the world.

Jesus brought Light into the darkness of this world. He is the Light himself. Because he is a part of God the Father, he has the power to transmit both absolute Truth and and divine miracles. The word he brought is the seed that on germination purified the darkness encasing the souls and liberating them from the shacles of sin. It is the word of Jesus that does the miracle of opening the path to God. In the word of Jesus also lies the power to thread the path leading to heaven, the kingdom of God. Flesh and blood including that of Jesus remain physical substance and cannot even rise to worlds closer to earth, much less the spiritual kingdom of God. God is not in his creations. God can only enter creation by incarnation as happened 2000 years ago in Jesus of Nazereth. After his death and subsequent resurrection, the divinity that is Jesus returned back to his Father. Thus there is no God in creation and any worship of anything in creation is idolatory. When Jesus forgived sins, he did it becuase he is God. It is God that is Jesus that forgave sins, not the pysical body of Jesus. The physical body of Jesus, that his flesh and blood are physical and it is idolatory to inwardly or outwardly expect the physical blood to wash away sins.

1. while I agree that Jesus brought light into our darkness, ur understanding and definition of that light does NOT capture the light Jesus represented.
The light He brought was within the acknowledgement and worship of God, to renew hope and let us know that we have a sonship right to live at eternity if only we believe.
believing has to do with believing Jesus as the son of God, His divinity and death. why should anyone believe his words and not believe his death or resurrection?
Jesus came to save the world. . .from what? from sin. How can one live in denial of this principal purpose and then claim to love Jesus or have the love of Christ in him?

2. Jesus specifically asked that wine be drank in remembrance of Him as depicted in the last supper. This is what is done in the form of a communion in millions of churches world wide. This is not in any way a form of idolatory. . . no one is worshipping the blood. All xtians are doing is to acknowledge the sacrifice involved in the shedding of that blood.

3. Except a man be saved, except he acknowledges the salvation of Jesus as depicted on the cross. . .he is CONDEMNED regardless of his good works.

Deep Sight:
O give me a break! How can anybody verify a dream, when it occurs within the consciousness of the dreamer only? ? ?

Are you suggesting to me that we cannot logically perceive the existence of things that cannot be scientifically seen?

That is exactly why i asked you about love!

I said - have you ever loved before? I am guessing you have. Oya, bring me the scientific proof for your love. Show us where it was empirically verified.

Someone has said on this forum that we actually live our lives centred around things that cannot be seen or touched! Love is just one example, and yet i am talking about the spiritual, and you are asking me for a scientific experiment? ? ? This beats me!

And this is the whole point: If you can sense things that a themometre cannot (such as love) why do you insist that anything which a themometre cannot verify therefore does not exist

I give up on you.

This post clearly exposes mazaje's ignorance:
I laugh in tongues

Deep Sight:
If you can state this, it is clear you are completely ignorant of what the man dedicated his life to.

If you can state this, i cannot and will not continue with this discussion.

I give up on you.

I gave up on u from ur first post on this thread. It showed that u are completely ignorant of what the scriptures says about eternity.

is Ghandi a peace maker?
in human language YES: based on his great revolutionary work in India.
but in bible terms NOPE.

mazaje:
That because you assume that the big bang is true. . . .scientist have explained the big bang and they do not include your nameless god as the force responsible for the expansion. . . .

sounds like u worship scientists , . .are they infallible?

Deep Sight:

Idols? Clearly you did not read the quotes of Ghandi i placed above.

See some of them on God:

Seeking God: "I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him. I am prepared to sacrifice the things dearest to me in pursuit of this quest. Even if the sacrifice demanded my very life, I hope I may be prepared to give it.

Faith in God: "Everyone has faith in God though everyone does not know it. For everyone has faith in himself and that multiplied to the nth degree is God. The sum total of all that lives is God. We may not be God, but we are of God, even as a little drop of water is of the ocean."

God is Strength: "Who am I? I have no strength save what God gives me. I have no authority over my countrymen save the pure moral. If He holds me to be a pure instrument for the spread of non-violence in place of the awful violence now ruling the earth, He will give me the strength and show me the way. My greatest weapon is mute prayer. The cause of peace is therefore, in God's good hands."

Ghandi's understanding of God is completely different from what the bible teaches. Ghandi rejected Jesus, as such he has rejected God.
u find it impossible to conceive in the container of ur imagination that Ghandi would go to hell . . . .but thats not mmy proposition but the word of God.
Ghandi refused the gift of salvation. . .why should he then inherit eternal life?

mazaje:
Na today. . . .the only thing is that you only end up revealing your own ignorance instead. . . .

blah blah blah sheep. . . .have u any wool?