₦airaland Forum

Can we then get back to the topic? Or would you rather convince us you're still restless?

olabowale:
I will like to have a referenced source where it is mentioned by Prophet Muhammad (AS), that Prophet David (AS) was the best of worshippers among mankind, including the generations of Jesus (AS) and that of Muhammad (AS)!

Okay, I've offered the answers to that request earlier in the year before my long absence. However, just so there are no guesses still left in your mind, let me offer them as a reminder:

A few references from the "sahih hadiths" (i.e., "hadiths believed to be authentic" where Muhammad is said to have concretely stated these issues about David:

(a) . . . that David's fasting is the best:

[list]". . . The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), said: Fast one day and break on the other day. That is known as the fasting of David (peace be upon him) and that is the best fasting." -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2587. [/list]

[list]'Abdullah b. 'Amr (Allah be pleased with both of them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: With Allah the best fasting is that of David and the best prayer is that of David (peace be upon him) for he slept half of the night and stood for prayer for the third of it and (then) slept the sixth part of it and he observed fast one day and broke on the other. -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2595[/list]

[list]". . .Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: There is no fasting (better than) the fasting of David which comprises half of the age, fasting a day and not fasting a day. . " -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2597[/list]


(b) . . . that David's prayer is the best:

[list]"'Abdullah b. 'Amr (Allah be pleased with both of them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: With Allah the best fasting is that of David and the best prayer is that of David. . ." -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2595[/list]

[list]". . .and the best prayer in the eye of Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, is that of David" -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2596[/list]

[list]"Narrated Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As: Allah's Apostle told me, "The most beloved prayer to Allah is that of David and the most beloved fasts to Allah are those of David. He used to sleep for half of the night and then pray for one third of the night and again sleep for its sixth part and used to fast on alternate days." -- Sahih Bukhari, Bk. 21, Num. 231[/list]


(c) . . . that David was the best worshipper:

[list]". . .I said: Apostle of Allah, I am capable of doing more than this. He said: Your wife has a right upon you, your visitor has a right upon you, your body has a right upon you; so observe the fast of David, the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), for he was the best worshipper of Allah. . . ." -- Sahih Muslim, Bk. 006, Num. 2588[/list]


I hope the above help to clear your doubts.

Missy B:
Look above the religion sec page for confirmation.

Lol.

mazaje:
Moslems and christains don come high-jack the thread dey argue with each other. . . . . . . . .

I just realized that a separate motherboard has been created for Muslim discussions - and one should wonder why that is insufficient for the Muslim gentelman who has done the 'highjacking'.

olabowale:
@Tpia: Before you run to far with the topic, please tell me what is the meaning of beget, apart from sired? I remember as a child when the Christians will say that Mary said that she was overshadowed. Please as a man or woman, get into your private room and think about what it is meant by being overshadowed!

Can you please demonstrate from the Quran that to "overshadow" is the same as to have "sexual intercourse"?

I realize this tired old games people like you play - it is a sign of restlessness and discontent where the sort of allegations you make actually lack substance. This is why no matter how many times you turn and stir, you cannot answer your own allegation that the prophets ever used the terms "beget/begotten" to mean the same thing as "sexual intercourse" - as in the examples I gave of Moses, David and Ethan.

Are you still so restless? The simple thing to do is acknowledge the fact that you are making false accusations - something which your own religion claims to denounce.

Can you rest your heart now and plot your graph back to your Muslim motherboard and let this topic be? Thank you.

Amazing. I've been gone for so long that I didn't realize the changes until I read the above.

I wonder why then we have to keep reminding Muslims to plot their graphs to their motherboard instead of constantly straying away into the Christian motherboard! Do we take it to mean that that is a sign of deep discontent within their own corridors that they must necessarily stray away from their own?

Anyway, as suggested by tpia, let's get back to the topic: "Does God Really "choose" A Spouse For You?"




@Olabowale, if you'D like to discuss your concerns further, it might be helpful to seek a suitable thread and do so. It is not appropriate to just seek to argue in any thread without minding the topic being discussed. If the initial questions I offered you cannot be answered, nothing else matters at the end of the day - because it only means that you're forcing interpretations into the teachings of the prophets that they never suggested: and as a Muslim, you should know that such an attitude is denounced in Islam!

[quote author=mesmya. link=topic=168409.msg2763545#msg2763545 date=1220714258]Mr man go through d link,u will see that ,d way it was written on d net is d exact way i copied and pasted here


good so,make u no go get hypertension,afterall d link is there i did not add or subtract[/quote]Lol. . . but nobody has ever for one moment accused you of adding or subtracting! The point is not whether you doctored the report (by adding or subtracting). It is a crime, regardless who did it: it is a serious crime indeed, abi?

olabowale:
Can anyone, in a reasonable manner, show me from the Bible where God says about Jesus, that to beget, as it should be known with the capability of man, involves sexual intercourse, but in the case of Jesus, I, even I your Lord God, beget Jesus, in a more profound and unfamiliar way? It is reasonable for me to accept that God was never seen by any man, because the prophets, the elects of god declared this very idea!

This makes utterly no sense at all!

You mooted an idea, thus:

When a child is begottened, it means there is sexual intercourse,

Now we are asking you to be reasonable in showing us from the Bible you found the idea as such: have you found it yet?

Turning back to ask anyone to show you your own assumptions where you have not been able to demonstrate it yourself is a wasted argument.

olabowale:
Please somebody should tell me where God says that He changed up the process of what is begotten, when it came to Him and son Jesus, since He, God, never expressed to anybody before that He needed a son!

The assignment was simple: where in the Bible did any one of the prophets speak of "sexual intercourse" when using the word "begotten/beget" in speaking about our relationship with Him?

I gave the examples of Moses, David and Ethan - can you show me where they used it to suggest "sexual intercourse"? I'm still waiting, thank you.

And if they did not, why are you so bent on forcing your own unrealistic allegations upon what the prophets have taught?

olabowale:
Will having a son, as a progeny not cheapened His Awesomeness? Is there anything similar to God? The people say God has a son have given us an impression that God is limited and not unique in every sense of the word. That is totally wrong. Is God all of a sudden incapable of governance, able to for forgive without any residual effect, incapable of doing all things, without anything from anyone?

The question is not able God's governance, or being able to forgive. Rather, you alleged that the Biblical term 'begotten/beget' means there is sexual intercourse (underlined portion is quoting you directly). Have you shown where that idea came from any of the prophet?

Lol. . . don't woosh away from the main course of what you proposed: distractions or diversions are not credible tools of arguement here.

olabowale:
Was Jesus not formed, as we see the prophets of old declared about the creation of man, by God Almighty? How do anyone explain the word of Jesus himself, other than being a formed being of God, as we read in Mark 12 Verse 29? I am all ears.

How does this answer the allegation of your statement about "begotten/beget" as connoting "sexual intercourse" as used by the prophets?

olabowale:
Davidylan, esoo, omo Obanta? Ki de sheee! Omo weee! And there is no better worshipper than Muhammad (AS)!

I tire for you!   Even Muhammad never once made such a statement: yet we know that he clearly stated that David was "the best worshipper!" In your scale of reference, which comes higher: better or best?

olabowale:
Not even Jesus, the lord of the Christians! Muhammad (AS), only eat when there is food. The rest of the times, he was fasting! He, the nobliest of prophets, (AS), warned the muslims not to copy his style of fasting, because it may be an unattainable condition for the Muslims.

Please leave all these tales by moonlight and answer the simple question: where did Moses, David or Ethan describe "begotten/beget" to mean that there is "sexual intercourse"?

olabowale:
Yet he recommended, or used as a means of explanation, or example, among others, the fast of Prophet David! Is the fasting style of David, the prophet of God not easier than the continued fasting of Prophet Muhammad, (AS), when the time and conditions put him in such situation?

All I can say unequivocally is that Muhammad stated clearly that David was "the best worshipper".

Now can we wait to see your reasonable answers to your own assumptions on what the prophets meant by "beget/begotten"?

[quote author=Sky-walker link=topic=168409.msg2763487#msg2763487 date=1220713108]We Nigerians we have issues . Why not say Teacher Rapes 7 year old girl. Must it be stretched by putting Jehovah Witness there.[/quote]I rest my case!

shuppie:
what is not good is not good. there is no other name for it. it doesn't matter who committed the sin, it is a very heinous crime against that poor little girl and Almighty GOD.

I thought I was alone!   The message is clear: whoever did such a thing has committed a serious crime! Period!


Edited:

Just to highlight the point, I just stumbled across this one: "Man rapes 3 kids of same parents same day" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-166583.0.html#msg2741968)

Let's assume the "man" in question is not a "leader" anywhere. . . does it make the crime less serious than the one reported in this thread?


@idupaul, I see your point. Carried.

bettes:
This kind of thing happens happens all time in nigeria and people get away with it all the time, it is more than a big deal.

Help me explain more to them!

mesmya:
upset?u is d one who's getting upset,just because i mentioned jehova witness,wt d way you're acting one wouldthink you're one

. . .give reasonable contributions or forever hold your peace

My dear mesmya,

I think my input has been reasonable enough - and no, I'm not a Jehovah Witness, if that makes you feel better. And certainly, I'm not worked up.

As in my reply just above, my concern is not whether or not the culprit was a "JW" - no, that is not why this should be a serious matter. It is a "crime" - whether or not the person was a JW or an ordinary tenant! The fact that it is a "crime" is what makes the case serious, and not the other way round by placing the emphasis on the "church post".

If a crime is committed, it does not matter who the person is or what position they held - it is still a serious crime: and that has been my point. I have not seen how anyone came back to make a case that it should be less than a "crime" if it was done by someone else!

"JW" or not, a crime was committed - that is what makes it serious!

euromilion:
nawa 4 sum people  oo,how can sum people say it's not a big news,

Lol. . . please when you guys read issues, make good sense and don't jump to conclusions unnecessarily. The fact that it happens at all is a crime - that is where the emphasis is.

Just because a 'JW' dunnit does not make it more serious than if a common tenant did it at all. To many people, the big deal is simply because the culprit is a "JW" with a "post in church". Haba! If he was not a JW nko?

What difference does it make if the same crime was commit by anyone regardless of what position/post they held anywhere else? Is it not as serious? How many such cases have been reported in media with the same outcry? Does it then mean that if the culprit had no post anywhere, it should be less serious?

mesmya:
its not a big deal because it happens all d time right?

Don't get upset unnecessarily - I didn't try to downplay it as "not a big deal". I'm sure I've come across several screaming threads like that on this forum and some others; but I still made it clear it is a crime all the same.

mesmya:
i wonder why people that claim to be leaders in d house of God should get involved wt shits like this

"Leaders" outside the house of God do even worse. . . but how many people get to hear or read about them? Why should anyone for that matter want to be "involved" in such worrisome trends at all?

mesmya:
be it a jehovah witness or a watever,d fact that they r carrying this posts in church and still stoop so low as to rape a young girl is crazy

What if they had no church-posts at all - does that in itself make the crime any better? It is still worse than crazy if a rickshaw tenant did it!

mesmya:
not when they come to preach rubbish to people

Whether or not they "preach" whatever they do, it is still a crime that should be frowned upon.

1.

KunleOshob:
The whole purpose and intent of church worship/ gathering as been lost (this is the fault of the old generation churches)

2.

KunleOshob:
however the new generation church are not only compounding this problem, they are taking advantage of the ignorance of the generality of christians to snatch them from their existing churches.

3.

KunleOshob:
The new generation churches are mostly business establishments so they deploy agressive marketing stragegies to win congergations( not souls) for their establishments.

Simple, cutting edge analyse. Thank you.

This is not headline news - even if the tag of "Jehovah Witness" was absent, it is still a crime that many people in many places commit (and in some quarters, they get away with it).

Thanks for your concerns. Let me highlight the areas where you constantly miss it all:

olabowale:
When a child is begottened, it means there is sexual intercourse,

Unfortunately, this is where you make the mistake of projecting your own ideas into the teachings of the prophets. I asked for direct references (verses, scriptures, etc) where any of the prophets assumed "sexual intercourse" when speaking about our relationshop with God by the term "begotten". Have you found such a text yet?

Let me enunciate it further: we know that David was a prophet - and it would indeed be a queer Muslim that would deny this. Infact, we know that Muhammad in referring to the same David said that the latter was "the best worshipper". But even David himself used this same expression ("begotten" when speaking about the Messiah in Psalm 2:7:

[list]"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"[/list]

Again, in the Psalms we find another yet interesting statement:

[list]"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." - Psa. 89:26-27[/list]

It doesn't stop there. Go back to Moses - another man that no sincere Muslim would deny as a prophet - and let's see where he also used the term "begat" >>

[list]"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee" - Deut. 32:18[/list]

The concept of divine sonship expressed with such words as "beget, begat, begotten" was not strange to the prophets. As could be understood from the above, neither the prophets Moses nor David used the term to mean that "there is sexual intercourse" according to your allegation. My question is simple: since both Moses, David and Ethan (Psalm 89) used the term without reference to sexual intercourse, where did you get your own idea that they were speaking about such?

olabowale:
Why then give an affirmative conclusion, as to say that he is a begotten son, when upon the process being tested, since there is no explanation that is reasonable that people are up in arm about a simple logical inquiries about it? Why use a term that you can't give a logical explanation on?

Indeed, I affirm the divine sonship of Jesus Christ - and as can be seen in my explanation and references above, it is quite logical to understand that it did NOT connote the idea of "sexual intercourse", unless you want us to conclude now that Islam has changed and no longer recognise Moses and David as prophets.

olabowale:
To say that Jesus is anything but human, and when pressed on it, to cry out as if it is not a legitimate concern, is being completely dishonest.

Your allegation is not new. Dishonesties aside, is it not queer that you haven't been able to defend your own disingenuous ideas about the concepts being argued - and which have been demonstrated here as used by the prophets without the idea of "sexual intercourse"? Can we ask you to show where the prophets ever used it the way you are unreasonably arguing?

olabowale:
Finally, I am not interested in engaging emotionally charged people who will rather not provide decent explanation, but retort to inuendos.

I doubt that you have been able to provide decent explanations.

If I could make a few comments:

olabowale:
I asked the question about begotten son, sometimes in the past. Who is the mother of this begotten son, the woman who should therefore be the wife/spouse of the father who beget the begotten son? But justcool raised other issues when he used the american professor to explain away this absurd notion.

The Biblical teaching of divine sonship is never once projected to mean that Mary was therefore the wife/spouse of the Father. It is indeed absurd to keep forcing your own preconceptions into the prophets' teachings and assume what you have forever been unable to defend.

My simple enquiry remains the same: where is it ever stated that the mother of Jesus is "therefore" the wife/spouse of the Father? Where did the prophets ever once project such an idea?

olabowale:
But there was existing long time the notion of prophethood, before the Jews; Adam, Enoch, Noah, Ibrahim, Ismail, Isaac and others were prophets before Jacob, the father of Judah, whose name Judaism or Jew was derived!

And what about Isaiah, Zechariah, Micah, Malachi and Jeremiah - were they not prophets as well? Why is ISAIAH a problem to Islamic theorists?

olabowale:
Could the Almighty God be afraid that a group from His own creations, will kill Him? Is God ever afraid of even more powerful genie or the most powerful of all of His known creations, the Angels? If human can kill a thing, please note that whatever that was killed can never be Almighty! Only a horrible mind will ever suggest something like that!

Can we also say that a "thing" that can be hurt is also not God? Are you forgetting that it is "sahih" (i.e., "authentic Islamic teaching" that a nameless son of Adam hurt the 'God' of Islam?

olabowale:
Up till now, has a significant amount of the Jews believed in him? Both questions have a common answer, NO!

It's such a pity you live in self-denial. How many Jews do you count as "significant amount" by the clear evidence of the following verses:

MANY believed in His name - John 2:23

MANY believed on him - John 8:30

And MANY believed on him there - John 10:42

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also MANY believed on him - John 12:42

When you read all the above carefully in their context, you find that the "MANY" who believed in Jesus were actually JEWS! (see the following for example: John 2:20, 8:31, and 10:22-23.

And if you want a direct quote to elucidate the point, sample the following in John 11:45 -

[list]Then MANY of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on Him.[/list]

Even in contemporary times, we know how many Jews are daily beliving that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? The answer should have been obvious with a little updated check done sincerely.

olabowale:
Will the verse lord, lord we prophetised in your name, be irrelevant, if all the faithful can guarantee their heavens, just by faith alone?

Did you happen to even read it in its context?

olabowale:
What therefore is the message of Mark 12 verse 29; Your Lord and my Lord is but One God?

Where did you get the idea that Muhammad actually believed that he was worshipping the same God as the Jews and Christians? Please consult the Quran again and let's know what you missed.

Cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=61492.msg2739270#msg2739270 date=1220295681]Apsotle Paul already stated that the woman is not to be a Pastor.[/quote]I'm quite interested in reading where apostle Paul actually "stated" the above. Do you have a direct verse where he "stated" it so?

toluxa1:
WE ARE LIVING IN A DAY WHEN GOD IS FINISHED WITH THE CHURCHES. EVERY SINGLE CHURCH AND TODAY IS UNDER THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD. We read in I Peter 4:17:

The verse your cited (1 Peter 4:17) does not teach what you suppose. Please read it carefully, and reflect on the fact that if God has "finished" with "every single church", then that must necessarily include your own (if you have one at all).

Now, the logically question here is: toluxa1, has God finished with your own church as well?

sunyx:
I do not pay tithe because Jesus did not command me to do so.

I'm sure there are a whole lot of things that you do - and yet for which Jesus did not "command" you.

Such topics are interesting - and we all have our various understandings and persuasions about them. But to argue that Jesus did not "command" tithing at any point (or even speak about it) only reveals that such brethren have not carefully read what He did say about the subject.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=166629.msg2763040#msg2763040 date=1220704213]That is better than claiming that someone is satan's agent because they do not see things exactly as you do.[/quote]I'm with you on that - and it's my hope that as we mature in our faith, reason and love will become much more pronounced than outright denunciations.

I didn't mean to sound it so!

The above is commendable, as are those preceding it.

olabowale:
Do not linger in the sorrowness too long.

That is a pivotal concern - and my prayers are with you, tonye-t, that you find all the encouragement you need to be strong for the joys beyond the present.

Let this bless your heart:
Psa 71:21 Thou shalt increase my greatness, and comfort me on every side.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=168036.msg2762993#msg2762993 date=1220703283]Well the simple solution is for both people to make themselves adaptable. [/quote]Precisely my thoughts. In marriage, there's bound to be compromises both ways - the man must 'adjust' as much as he expects the woman to be 'adaptable'.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=166629.msg2762959#msg2762959 date=1220702586]Instead of condemning them to hell, he only points out their faults.[/quote]Lol. . . Pointing out people's fault - whichever way one does it - is quite a task, and in many instances could be misread or misinterpreted.

Anyhow, I'm persuaded that the life God gave us is in Christ a victorious one. The problem IMHO here is simply one of definitions. The concept that some of us carry about such words as "victory/victorious" often tends to materialism (and I don't subscribe to that idea). However, the "victorious" life we have in Christ is very clearly expressed in Scripture in so many verses - a few examples include:

(1). Romans 8:37 - Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

(2). 1 John 5:4 - For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Perhaps one reason why I don't subscribe to the idea of materialism in defining a "victorious" Christian life could be highlighted by Joseph's experience in Genesis 39. The man was in prison and yet had the testimony that whatever he did, the LORD made it to "prosper" (see verses 2 and 29).

Isn't it awesome that the life we have in Christ is indeed victorious?

olabowale:
who is the spouse of this Christian God, since you believe that He has a son, child, progeny, begotten son?

Actually, "sonship" in Biblical terms does not project the idea of sex. That concept began with Islam, and nowhere does the Bible teach such an idea. The only fair thing you can do to yourself is to be honest.

When the Bible uses the term "begotten" (or any such akin words as "beget" in speaking of our relationship with God, it is clear that not once did the prophets project the idea of sex and wife. If there is, please find it. If there is none, heal your mindset with simple truths.

Hi everyone,

It's been quite an age - and a refreshing moment to visit the Forum again and be blessed with this thread. So far so good - keep it up y'all.

Could I just make a comment on the following misconception:

olabowale:
And ignore the teaching of the other guy, Jesus, the prophet of God, while it is different from the teaching of Paul.

Two things here:

(a) it's not a question of the "other guy" - referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as such only demonstrates the condition of the commentator's heart.

(b) the teachings of the apostle Paul are not different from what the Lord Jesus taught - and certainly not on this subject of the condition of the heart. As is clear in the context of JeSoul's contribution, the apostle exposes the problem with the heart of man when dealing with spiritual things, especially here in the question of fruitfulness.

It is clear from JeSoul's comments that there are no "differences" as assumed by Olabowale, if the latter had read contextually: "We must follow the teaching of Paul in throwing off these things". I'm sure that Jesus Christ did not teach the direct opposite of that.

All the same, well done guys - and many blessings.

@dtw_sola,

[quote author=dtw_sola link=topic=109808.msg1911007#msg1911007 date=1201891301]The issue of whether or not he plagiarized the post is a red herring. The fact is that these things are written in the bible, and many Christians, blinded by their faith, either don't know or chose to overlook or ignore it. Yet many of  these same Christians claim that the bible is unflawed, and should be literally interpreted.[/quote]Your assumptions are unfortunately as otiose as the poster's motive in opening this thread. Rather than hide behind the terse remark that these things are written in the Bible, we have invited the poster to a discussion - was that too hard a challenge for her - or for you? Alphazee cannot just make allegations against Christians where she in very fact has not demonstrated a willingness to enter into a discussion and reason out issues coherently - not minding the fact that some responses already have left a few observations for her to discuss. Where has she honestly attended to those issues?

hotfunmi:
No, I am not. It sounds like you are putting words into my mouth. My stance is, we should look deeper and investigate not only our local pastors but church elders too. They prolong our stay in churches day by day to forestall any "funny" idea of looking deeper in the affairs of our coffers. In Nigeria, pastors/ministers are untouchable, people like to look unto them as icons and will scarcely muster any courage to ask questions even when what he/she is doing is glaring.
If we criticize our corrupt govt officials, mayors and kings, why not pastors and imams? Afterall, those govt offficials are ordained by God too.

I feel you hotfunmi, I do. 

It was not my aim to exchange any unpleasantries with you on any matter. I guess I got hot-headed there; but thank God for my many God-sent friends who whip me back to a godlike humility - which they just did (we often enjoy the evenings together like this).

Here, I'm humbled by just one thing, though: it is true that the church I attend does not encourage some of the things that get you peeved. They are open about Church finances; they welcome criticism with such godly humility; they encourage us to ask questions - especially about issues that would help them to be more accountable. . . and a whole lot of other things that challenge us to feel quite at home in our church fellowship without the need to be proud.

I would simply just comply with my friends here on two things they've asked me to do:

     ~ apologise where you might have misread me

     ~ humbly seek a healthy input and not push anything where people may further misread me!

I'm thankful for such a blessing of godly people around me; and I do hope to be a blessing to others in my small ways.

- - - - - -

That said, I should no further be tedious to you or anyone in this thread, so that the topic can be discussed as was originally planned.

Many blessings, hotfunmi.

olabowale:
Jesus was never referred to as the light in the Qur'an, so I will conclude that you lied, yet again about Jesus.

That you assume the Qur'an never referred to Jesus as the light in the Qur'an does not mean we should close our Bibles. That was precisely what Muhammad wanted us to do - but the moment we opened our Bibles to read for ourselves, we discovered he simply denied the revelations of the Biblical prophets which God gave unto them!

Do you care to do likewise - open a Bible to see for yourself! Any good English translation will tell you that Jesus is the Light, He is the Way, He is the Life, and He is the Son of God.