₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
Thank you. They are all bull shit.

MaxInDHouse:
That's it, so instead of giving yourself this headache just tell him everything in both Bible and Quran are all bullshit.

sonmvayina:
The stories are lies. But the messages are true.
The letter killeth.

But from my own research, Allah is the moon good sin/Nanna

Antichristian2:
If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

One of the more telling issues with the questioned posed above is that those who have responded to it believe that the question was tricky to answer. I agree it is tricky to answer, that’s the very reason I asked it in the first place! I therefore, don’t find that description of the question to be a problem, it’s more an affirmation that I framed the question properly in the first place. I’m essentially asking one question:

Is the New Testament required to be believed in for salvation in Christianity?

In other words, can someone be a believing Christian without having need for, or being dependent on the New Testament? Can someone reject it and yet, still be saved? This is effectively how the earliest Christians lived, without a New Testament. Some have tried to respond with the following passages:

*“Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)
*“believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

These verses do not answer my question. What these verses teach is that you should believe in the good news, but it does not require belief in this or that or any other Gospel. The authors of Mark, over its centuries of development, never emended the text to say, “repent and believe in this gospel,” there’s a reason for that, the verse is conveying the point that it’s good to believe in what Jesus brought, i.e. his message, not the documents written by people decades later who never knew him. Rather, what is emphasized for belief is in him, Jesus, not any written work by any man. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. There is no requirement to believe in the New Testament as God’s inspired revelation to be saved in Christianity. Consider for a moment, this very important passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV).

It’s useful for lots of things, except for salvation. This passage does not state that belief in scripture is a requirement to be saved. Scripture is useful for many things, but it’s not a requirement. It’s like the difference between having an umbrella in the rain and not having one. Sure, the umbrella is useful and it is good for many things when it’s raining, but it’s not a necessity or requirement for when you’re going into the outside world. This is the distinction between something’s usefulness and it’s necessity, one is clearly not the other.

So then, the question begs itself, doesn’t it? Do you require the canonized and codified New Testament, to be believed in, as a requirement for your salvation in Christianity? The earliest Christians did not seem to think so, so why do you?

and God knows best.

Antichristian2:
It is clear Mark was not among the 12 disciples. Show us where Mark was sent out in the Luke you claimed!
And Muhammad doesn't need to meet Allah! Just as no Prophet ever met Allah except from behind a screen! Angel Gabriel has always ben sent to Prophets to deliver Allah's messages and revelations. Muhammad didn't claim he saw Jesus that blinded him. Paul claim he saw a bright light that called itself Jesus. Just a one time event. Muhammad's own was a 23 years event. Even the companions of Muhammad saw the Angel come to teach them Islam as a man! Who saw Paul see Jesus? He didn't see Jesus. He saw a light. Hence he wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

I know you can't explain any part of your Christianity without mentioning Islam. What was compilled in Ezra exactly? Who compiled it? How was the compilation preserved? Where are your evidence that Ezra compiled it?

What is meant by the review is that Jibreel reviewed the Qur’an with the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) every year in Ramadan.

It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: He [the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)] told me: Jibreel used to review the Qur’an every year with him once or twice, but this year he reviewed it with him twice. He said: “I think that my death has drawn near, so fear Allah and be patient, for what a good example I am for you.” Narrated by Muslim (2450).

According to a report narrated by al-Bukhaari (3624), “Jibreel used to review the Qur’an with me once every year, but this year he has reviewed it with me twice, and I think that my death is approaching, and you [Faatimah] will be the first of my family to join me.” So I [Faatimah] wept, then he said: “Does it not please you that you will be the leader of the women of Paradise, or of the believing women.” So I smiled at that.

Among the Sahaabah, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood and Zayd ibn Thaabit witnessed this review.

As for the Compilation by Uthman:
Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Malik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman at the time when the people of Sham (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to 'Uthman, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Quran) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Quran so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you."

Hafsah sent it to 'Uthman. Then 'Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa’eed ibn al-‘As and ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham to copy out the manuscripts. 'Uthman said to the three men who were from Quraysh (the tribe of which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was a member), “In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh, for the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Did you live with Orunmila? Who did he worshipped till he died? We judge people by what is apparent. Only Allah sees the heart.

Allah has told us that he will forgive all sins for the one who repents to Him. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say: ‘O My slaves! who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’” [Az-Zumar 39:53]

This includes all sins, even Shirk (association of partners with Allah). Whoever repents, Allah will accept his repentance.

“And those who invoke not any other god along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace; Except those who repent and believe (in Islamic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds; for those, Allah will change their sins into good deeds, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al-Furqan 25:68-70]

“Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One God (Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them. Will they not turn with repentance to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al-Ma’idah 5:73-74]

Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away.[An-Nisaa 4:116]

sonmvayina:
The stories are lies. But the messages are true. The letter killeth. But from my own research, Allah is the moon good sin/Nanna

MaxInDHouse:
If the stories are lies then what makes the message true?
Ok someone said sonmvayina is a myth but his stories are true.
Abeg smell it and say that's not madness speaking!

Gabrielshow24:
It's just your own sentiment😂.

sonmvayina:
Is the story in "Things fall apart" True?
But it is packed with many messages for the reader. Same as the Bible stories. Read it and learn the messages and apply them to your life. It's not hard.

MaxInDHouse:
So you believe in the nonsense written by that man shey?
Why not ask people to start acting upon what the man wrote nah?

sonmvayina:
God and read it as an adult.
It is obvious you don't know anything about the book.
A book that was turned into a movie...

MaxInDHouse:
So if a book was turned into a movie by those who felt it's important that means everyone should be interested shey?

How come you don't want to hear about Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples with all the movies ever acted ?
Or are you saying your Things fall apart movie goes further than the movie of Jesus?

sonmvayina:
Jesus and Okonkwo fall in the same category. They are both characters in a fictional book. Only a fool will worship the character in a fictional story.

MaxInDHouse:
So can you now accept the story of Jesus and start learning from what the Bible say about him?

sonmvayina:
Not him. The story is fiction.
The authors might put some truth in his mouth. That is what I am taking. It is the author that is knowledgeable not the character in the story.

MaxInDHouse:
OK so the author is knowledgeable but the character makes no sense to you shey?
No wahala, my question is are you ready to learn from the gospel writers?

sonmvayina:
You are not even following at all.
Who is more knowledgeable?
Ola Rotimi who wrote "the gods are not to blame"
Or Adewale a character in the book?
Jesus is a character in the gospel stories. It is the author who wrote it that is enlighten and made his character in his book make some true statements....
Are you following now?

MaxInDHouse:
We are saying the same thing nah!

You want to learn from Ola Rotimi not Odewale so can you now learn from the gospel writers too?

sonmvayina:
Why not...if the information will be beneficial to my life.

MaxInDHouse:
That's it so learn from the gospel writers!

Antichristian2:
If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

One of the more telling issues with the questioned posed above is that those who have responded to it believe that the question was tricky to answer. I agree it is tricky to answer, that’s the very reason I asked it in the first place! I therefore, don’t find that description of the question to be a problem, it’s more an affirmation that I framed the question properly in the first place. I’m essentially asking one question:

Is the New Testament required to be believed in for salvation in Christianity?

In other words, can someone be a believing Christian without having need for, or being dependent on the New Testament? Can someone reject it and yet, still be saved? This is effectively how the earliest Christians lived, without a New Testament. Some have tried to respond with the following passages:

*“Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)
*“believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

These verses do not answer my question. What these verses teach is that you should believe in the good news, but it does not require belief in this or that or any other Gospel. The authors of Mark, over its centuries of development, never emended the text to say, “repent and believe in this gospel,” there’s a reason for that, the verse is conveying the point that it’s good to believe in what Jesus brought, i.e. his message, not the documents written by people decades later who never knew him. Rather, what is emphasized for belief is in him, Jesus, not any written work by any man. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. There is no requirement to believe in the New Testament as God’s inspired revelation to be saved in Christianity. Consider for a moment, this very important passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV).

It’s useful for lots of things, except for salvation. This passage does not state that belief in scripture is a requirement to be saved. Scripture is useful for many things, but it’s not a requirement. It’s like the difference between having an umbrella in the rain and not having one. Sure, the umbrella is useful and it is good for many things when it’s raining, but it’s not a necessity or requirement for when you’re going into the outside world. This is the distinction between something’s usefulness and it’s necessity, one is clearly not the other.

So then, the question begs itself, doesn’t it? Do you require the canonized and codified New Testament, to be believed in, as a requirement for your salvation in Christianity? The earliest Christians did not seem to think so, so why do you?

and God knows best.

sonmvayina:
Have I ever told you I don't. I quoted them the other time didn't I?
"The kingdom of God is within you" which is a fact.

sonmvayina:
Thank you. They are all bull shit.

MightySparrow:
What is the meaning of salvation in Islam?

Antichristian2:
Salvation in Islam is the deliverance from sins and the admittance into Paradise! The key components include Iman (Faith), righteous deeds, sincere repentance and submission to the will of Allah by following the Prophet he sent.

MaxInDHouse:
So you can still gain something tangible from what you called "BULLSHIT"

Antichristian2:
Salvation in Islam is the deliverance from sins and the admittance into Paradise! The key components include Iman (Faith), righteous deeds, sincere repentance and submission to the will of Allah by following the Prophet he sent.

Antichristian2:
If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

One of the more telling issues with the questioned posed above is that those who have responded to it believe that the question was tricky to answer. I agree it is tricky to answer, that’s the very reason I asked it in the first place! I therefore, don’t find that description of the question to be a problem, it’s more an affirmation that I framed the question properly in the first place. I’m essentially asking one question:

Is the New Testament required to be believed in for salvation in Christianity?

In other words, can someone be a believing Christian without having need for, or being dependent on the New Testament? Can someone reject it and yet, still be saved? This is effectively how the earliest Christians lived, without a New Testament. Some have tried to respond with the following passages:

*“Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)
*“believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)

These verses do not answer my question. What these verses teach is that you should believe in the good news, but it does not require belief in this or that or any other Gospel. The authors of Mark, over its centuries of development, never emended the text to say, “repent and believe in this gospel,” there’s a reason for that, the verse is conveying the point that it’s good to believe in what Jesus brought, i.e. his message, not the documents written by people decades later who never knew him. Rather, what is emphasized for belief is in him, Jesus, not any written work by any man. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. There is no requirement to believe in the New Testament as God’s inspired revelation to be saved in Christianity. Consider for a moment, this very important passage:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV).

It’s useful for lots of things, except for salvation. This passage does not state that belief in scripture is a requirement to be saved. Scripture is useful for many things, but it’s not a requirement. It’s like the difference between having an umbrella in the rain and not having one. Sure, the umbrella is useful and it is good for many things when it’s raining, but it’s not a necessity or requirement for when you’re going into the outside world. This is the distinction between something’s usefulness and it’s necessity, one is clearly not the other.

So then, the question begs itself, doesn’t it? Do you require the canonized and codified New Testament, to be believed in, as a requirement for your salvation in Christianity? The earliest Christians did not seem to think so, so why do you?

and God knows best.

sonmvayina:
The story is bull shit. But it has some true messages in it....like the one I quoted.

gohf:
so your salvation is based on following Muhammad?

MightySparrow:
Did your prophet experience all these?

Antichristian2:
All Prophets did!

gohf:
The new testament is based on the words and teachings of Jesus which they learnt and taught others, having a record of those teachings in the present day is a blessing but even if we didn't we have the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

The early church heard the teachings of Jesus either directly or from those who heard them directly and they used scriptures to verify and show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah promised by God. Scripture has always been what is referred to as the old testament or the Tanakh. The scripture reveal Jesus, while the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. So while scripture cannot save you, the gospel can.

When you believe in God's word through his son Jesus Christ, you obey it and follow it. The issue is when men place their faith in documents and in letters rather than in God and follow His Spirit that He has sent to us.