₦airaland Forum

Of course the Holy Spirit did, by revelation (in accordance with Christ's promise in John 16:15b)! For example, the Lord's supper was between Jesus and the twelve. However,Paul, before ever meeting the other apostles physically got a detailed revelation of the ordinance exactly as it happened:

1 Corinthians 11:23- 24

23 For I received from the Lord Himself that which I passed on to you [it was given to me personally], that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was treacherously delivered up and while His betrayal was in progress took bread,
24 And when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said, Take, eat. This is My body, which is broken for you. . .

Galatians 1:12
12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah).

While on earth, someone even attempted to exalt Mary but was corrected:

Luke 11:27,28

27 Now it occurred that as He was saying these things, a certain woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, Blessed (happy and [l]to be envied) is the womb that bore You and the breasts that You sucked!

28 But He said, Blessed (happy and [m]to be envied) rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey and practice it!

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Mary was neither needed nor mentioned here). When the Word was to be made flesh, God "... sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"(Galatians 4:4) Just as Eve was made of Adam 1Corinth 11:12
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

( Note that it did not say made by a woman) hence God the Holy Ghost did the making (incarnation) and Mary was the virgin (out of many) chosen. Just as we dont exalt Mary whose action was to be a memorial wherever the gospel was preached, we need not exalt she who was used(more like a tool or channel) to accomplish a Divine purpose!
Isaiah 10:15
15 Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw magnify itself against him who wields it back and forth? As if a rod should wield those who lift it up, or as if a staff should lift itself up as if it were not wood [but a man of God]!


It is wrong to exalt the tool above He who wields it. Mary (thankfully) didnt, we shouldnt.

raayah:
You will also g to hell fire (going by the same chapter and next) if you

1) Wear clothes of linen and wool mixed together
2) Take a mother bird from its nest.
3) Plant two different seeds on the same vineyard
4) Plow a donkey and ox together.
5) Charge interest on a job for your fellow Christian brothers.
6) Take away food from your neighbors house.(You can only eat there)
.........

So many things will take us to hell

The chapter you have in mind (Deuteronomy 22:5) says those who do such (wearing what pertains to the other gender) are an abomination to God. The others you listed above do not have that qualification. What God says is an abomination to Him remains so. An abomination to God under the OT did not change to a delight under the NT! If the word 'unclean' or 'defiled' had been used perhaps it would be assumed to be a ceremonial issue but the sentence - abomination unto the LORD - is weighty!

Revelation 21:27

Jaycool18:
pictures or idonbilvit

You must have noticed the mild drama?! I discovered that the site was a satirical site! Apologies.

These three words - I am sorry- would prevent a lot of calamities.

A gentle answer deflects anger,
but harsh words make tempers flare.
Proverbs 15:1

Thanks for the admonition. Sometimes,the need arises to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints just like Paul and others had to do when certain came down from Judea teaching things that could corrupt the Gospel. There are those on NL whose words "eat as does a canker" and can "overthrow the faith of some". And while, like you said, abusive words/name calling should be avoided, the need to set things in the right perspective for the afore-stated reasons will always arise.

Regards

2 Corinthians 12:2-4

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

The third heaven (paradise) was where Enoch, Elijah and a host of OT saints (and the thief on the cross) went to before Christ came. Note the use of the word caught up being similar to Enoch and Elijah's experience;meaning people could be physically taken to paradise or through death. However,Heaven,where God's Throne is can only be accessed through Jesus Christ (as a result of the redemption provided by His blood).

The paradise in question is separated from hell by a big, deep gulf as revealed in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

MrPresident:
but Eve ate the fruit without waiting for Adam?
why didn't the oneness apply so she wait for him to come and they eat together? before the acclaimed fall

Madam, you can twist it to suit your own theoretical ideology (a.k.a spiritual understanding)

truth is - the bible always means what the believer thinks.

ok

KellamLeTorneau:
So you admit son of god is not actually a literal term.

Kindly note that the verse did not say 'son' but 'children' neither did the word -Begotten (applies only to Jesus)- appear.

KellamLeTorneau:
So why not obey him and pray to God for safety and strength, just like he did?

Which command is that?

KellamLeTorneau:
So you admit son of god is not actually a literal term.

sorry, what in my reply gives you this impression?

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (David) Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:7

So David was also a begotten son, or did it mean it just like you claim Isaac was the only begotten son of ABRAHAM?

David,under the Spirit's Inspiration, spoke of Jesus here.Let me prove this

Psalm 2:8,9

... I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Revelations 2:29 (Jesus speaking)
And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

The Jews recognized that David was not just a king but a prophet (and that some of the psalm were prophesies concerning Christ . Acts 2:29,30

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Perhaps this would help

Romans 5:19
19 For as by one man’s (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one( Jesus Christ) shall many be made righteous.

KellamLeTorneau:
Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'" If all are sons of God it means he will send a person to save people from sin, like a prophet?

Psalm 82:1,2,6,7
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.(humans with the obtained knowledge of good and evil)
2 How long will ye judge unjustly,
and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
6 I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes.
(KJV) The context here alludes to the occurrence at Eden when man obtained the knowledge of good and evil; a child is easily recognized by the attribute(s) of his parent shared. Here the reference to children (not sons) is against this backdrop. Vs 7 gives you the tenor of the psalm .

Then whAt was he doing crying and praying to be saved? What sort of god can't save himself? Heck what sort of god cries? Or prays to another god?

Let these answer

John 1:1,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

The common denominator in both cases is that only God can save.

Yes and He did through Jesus Christ
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This wont be hard to understand for those who appreciate the spiritual implication of (i)the oneness of husband and wife,(ii) the headship of the man, especially before the fall.

KellamLeTorneau:
The colored part says:
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Read it this way,

Wherefore Jesus is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Jesus.

Just like it was said,
Matthew 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

KellamLeTorneau:
So it's actually God who saved them and not him?

Kindly quote the reference that informs this statement of yours.

Now let's not begin to sound like the pharisees who told Jesus,"save thyself", when God's plan of redemption (for which Christ came)was being accomplished!

Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,
John 8:34,36
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

shahydbinaliyu:
seems you don't understand English... rest means you are tired.... ceased from work doesn't necessarily means you tired...

(reminds me of Nicodemus!)
Alright then, I backed my explanation from the Bible, back yours too by the Bible (as per the highlighted).

shahydbinaliyu:
LAUGHING.... THE SAME GENESIS THAT SAID GOD RESTED!!!!!!

Simply meaning God ceased from the work of creation at the time indicated (and that only). Hebrews 4:10
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

The tenor of your post betrays your intention; this explanation is given for the benefit of the curious but unbiased.

It should be expected that the Truth (as it is in Christ Jesus) should suffer such attacks down through the ages! From Eden (Genesis 3:1-7, the engineer of all the aforestated efforts overplayed his hands and the same pattern continues today:
i) Twist the Word of God;or (why? this was even the tool employed by his emissaries who condemned Jesus to death!)

ii) Claim it does not mean what it says (refer to ancient languages & 'scrolls' {most of which have his fingerprints} which moderns know little about);

iii) Present God Who gave it as being insincere or unloving or unfair or at most an author of confusion;

iv) Give a cloned version of the Divine plan with inducements that appeal to the flesh;

Other things he does include:

v) Adopting that which has been discarded for deceptive purposes. etc

If these fail, eliminate them physically.

The father of lies will be jobless if there was no Truth and he works round the clock to corrupt the Truth!

Hence these manipulations which the op exults in (in this and other threads,) should be expected.

This diminishes nothing from us though.

It is well.

Can you expatiate further on point 5 (if possible with some Biblical illustrations)? Thank you.

malvisguy212:
bless you my brother, I notice your effort here on nairaland, it was good, good to know someone is strong in the faith.
http://www.godandscience.org/discovery/chapter1.html

Glory to God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

malvisguy212:
The Bible is the most
remarkable book ever written.
About 40 men of several
countries and many
occupations did the writing.
They wrote over a period of
approximately 1500 years and
in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek. Yet the Bible is an well-
organized unity with one great theme
and central figure - Jesus Christ. All of
this would be impossible unless the Bible
had one supreme Author - and it did -
the Holy Spirit of God.
A. The Age Of The Bible
The earliest portions of Scripture
date back more than 3,300 years.
However, its message has been
fresh and relevant to men of every
age and generation. Its pages are
still producing new gems of truth,
even to those who study them the
most.
B. The Demand For The Bible
It is by far the most widely circulated
book in the world. Since 1804, more
than 800 million Bibles and portions
of Scripture have been issued. These
figures are from the British and
Foreign Bible Societies alone. Every
year more than 22 million copies of
the complete Bible and New
Testament are circulated around the
globe.
The Bible has been translated more
than any other book. Each year we
see an increase in the number of
translations. The following figures
reflect this steady growth.
In 1500 A.D. it had been printed
in 14 languages.
In 1600 - about 40 languages.
In 1800 - about 72 languages.
In 1900 - about 567 languages.
In 1937 - about 1,000 languages
In 1970 - about 1500 languages.
In 1997 - to date, at least partially
translated in more than 2100
languages.
(Wycliffe Bible Translators are
currently working on an additional
1000 languages.)
3. The Uniqueness Of The Bible
(This material and more information
under this topic can be found in
Evidence Which Demands A Verdict. Josh
McDowell, pp. 16-25)
A. Unique In Its Continuity -
The Bible has an unique continuity when
you consider that...
it was written over a 1500-year period;
written over 40 generations;
written by over 40 authors from every
walk of life including kings, peasants,
philosophers, fishermen, poets,
statesmen, scholars, etc.;
written in many different places.
B. Unique In Its Survival -
1. Survival through Time -
Being written on material that
perishes, having to be copied
and recopied for hundreds of
years before the invention of
the printing press, did not
diminish its style, correctness
or existence. The Bible,
compared with other ancient
writings, has more manuscript
evidence than any 10 pieces of
classical literature combined.

Indeed! No Book has suffered such volume of multifaceted attacks and yet remains steadfast while myriads of its attackers , after serving their time on earth, were whisked by the cold hands of death to eternity unprepared.

KellamLeTorneau:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mr Scholar, it seems you can't ever seem to ever directly refute anything. You just bring more verses, spew them, contradict your claims and completely confuse the argument.

Why would God tell Refer to Isaac as his only son when Ishmael was still alive? Just because he was away? So what you're saying is Ishmael was an illegal child? But then Abraham was married to Hagar and are you accusing Abraham of abandoning his family?

God Himself gave the instruction that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away in chapter 21. It was after this event and others (when only the true son of promise was at home)that God tried Abraham which clarifies this perspective.

Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

Hebrews 11:17-18
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Furthermore, considering how Abraham wanted a wife only from his kindred (no other tribe) for Isaac, Hagar (an Egyptian) was named a wife but she remained a bondwoman (and this even superseded her claims to a wife) as affirmed.Note the highlighted especially the Angel's Abraham's words

Genesis 18:6-9
But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.



Yes just like the other kids from Keturah who Abraham sent away, Ishmael was also sent away because, as far as the promise and covenant was concerned, they were not to be reckoned with. In fact, the sons of Keturah were at least given gifts before being sent away. Ishmael was not even ranked together with these!



Besides, Abraham sent Ishmael and his mum off exactly as you would a slave -with bread and water, no inheritance.
Genesis 21:14
14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

He was not reckoned as a son (for what the word is worth) else why was he denied an inheritance?

KellamLeTorneau:
Jealous of the Arabs. Their rivalry started out a long time ago.

Can you prove this from the BCE era history? Any rivalry will simply be a fulfilment of the prophecy to Hagar that her son's hand will be against everyone vice versa. In fact, the it must have been the Arabs being jealous of the Israelites see Genesis 21:9
9 Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking [Isaac]. This must have followed Ishmael to the grave and , like the hatred of the Edomites (Esau's descendants) , passed down to his generations.

And I'm quite sure the bible spoke of how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the JEWS. And spoke of how it will be given to someone, not one of them, not from amongst them but from their brethren

Now you allude to the same Bible you are denigrating when what is said appears to favour your points! By the way you have panel beated and diluted that reference with your own beliefs. Can you give us the actual quote? And the kingdom of God as referred to by Christ (Who made the statement you are referring to) is of a spiritual essence hence Jesus Himself said
Luke 17:21
21 neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

This is in perfect keeping with the promise of the New Covenant where The Father said the following
Ezekiel 36:27
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This Covenant ,like the Old, had to be ratified by blood hence Christ said,
Matthew 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now if you claim that this is what was given to the Arabs, how come all these are conspicuously absent?

Even while Moses was receiving the law God's was looking forward to that time(in His plan) when this will be:
Deuteronomy 5:29
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

It's a matter of the heart not the external observances of the ceremonial law that's God's desire and that's where the NT focuses. Why? because the heart controls the man.

Now the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the bible has contradictions, You called Ishmael the son of a bond woman and that he was cast out. Is that anyway to speak of a wife of a prophet?

Do you know more than God by Whose inspiration Moses who wrote
Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.

You blatantly reject this but yet you can't defend it, like I said, JEWS, jealous.

Now if the Bible were to be tampered with by 'jealous jews' why would it be included that Abraham married hagar of that God also gave promises to Ishmael?!

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Consider Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The command to Abraham came, "after these things" what are they? The events recorded in chapter 21 one of which was the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael. It wont be a trial if Ishmael was still there to fall back on. Moreover, the promise God made in Genesis 22:16-18. was directly and evidently (proximately) fulfilled on Isaac. See Genesis 26:2-5

2 And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The implication of this is that you are ascribing partiality to God based on your claim that Ishmael was the reference, but Isaac got the blessings. Before you claim that Ishmael also was blessed, it came before this time and that was simply because Abraham prayed for him
Genesis 17:19-21

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year

Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham?

Refer to the replies above.

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy.

You are quoting a Jew who was a renowned traditionalist! Why even the Lord denounced them for this reason
Mark 7: 6 -9,13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


13 making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


A good number of the Jews (blinded by their pharisees, elders and the sadduccees) rejected Jesus at His first coming. After His ascension, these persisted in their unbelief and the result? (as prophesied)

Isaiah 29:10-12
For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep,
and hath closed your eyes:
the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

The aftermath was also described by Jesus Christ when He said
John 5:43,44-46
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

These traditionalists were the references here (though called pharisees, they had replaced the law of Moses with their traditions).

In conclusion, the saying of a traditionalist is not admissible for this purpose

KellamLeTorneau:
Its simple, the Quran explains what in the bible is true and what in the bible is wrong

For a book written upwards of 5 centuries after the commencement of the New Covenant (prophesied since the OT), which has no record of the New Covenant and the blood wherewith it was ratified, [something which the Father had in mind being One Whose attributes include covenant-keeping], I would wonder how we'd trust the testimony of one over that of both the prophets and the apostles.

Muhammad boldly claimed the bible spoke of him, this is something certain jews knew of,

The jews , as Isaiah 29:10-12 prophesied, were under the influence of a spirit of slumber after they'd rejected the Messiah after His first coming. (I hope you wont also say your prophet is their expected Messiah?!)

. There is a jew that told the prophet that the jews know it was Ishmael that was almost sacrifiiced but they changed it out of jealousy

This is preposterous! Jealousy?! The scriptures were ready centuries b4 Islam so who was being envied? Hebrews 11 says Abraham was going to offer up the son through whom the promise was to be fulfilled. Would you also then say that it was actually Sarah and Isaac that were sent away then? The Word stands sure, Isaac was the son of promise hence the son of the bondwoman was cast out! Besides the trial of Abraham came after Ishmael and his mum had been sent away not before!

Proves and explains the contradictions in the story of isaac and ishmael in the bible[/quote.] what contradictions are those? [quote]Quran says Jesus mentioned Muhammad by name, something the current bible may not directly contain , but the dead sea scrolls recovered speak of Muhammad and prophecise his coming as well, why isn't this in the bible?[/quote ] I dont believe this. What role did Muhammad play in relation to the New Covenant ratified by the blood of Jesus as He declared in Matthew 26:28 [quote]Where did it go? [/quote ] It was never there. [quote]Like I said, Muhammad was sent with the Quran which sheds light on the truth about the bible and torah, not the jewish propaganda that fills it.

God is not the author of confusion, promising a New Covenant (clearly differing from the pattern obtained under the OT) and making clear promises of the same and would all of a sudden change His mind and revert back to something after the pattern of the OT? What then happens to all the prophesies? The Quran says Jesus was not killed, Isaiah, Daniel [Daniel 9:26,"and after 62 weeks the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. Isaiah 53] etc clearly stated He will be killed. JESUS also affirmed the same. What then?

About the camels, read any of the articles above.

Various articles have been written about the study carried out by university of tel aviv, which used camel bones to date the earliest time camels were in that part of the world. They conducted their research and concluded the earliest time as 900BC, long after the bible claims in some verses that certain people rode them as seen below.

This research was was conducted by non muslims. This further re asserts the claims by modern historians that the bible has been tampered with and that its some contents aren't as old or original as claimed.

The problem of study , and the research methodology adopted suggests that the researchers were biased from the start. You'll notice that I said your proofs should be from history or bible, [except you are a believer in darwinism where bones discovered are claimed to be millions of years old!] the former as a believable primary source is still accessible since the nation concerned still exists.
The use of bones is indeed misleading. They might discover a camel's bone (now the camel in question might have died perhaps at the period their 'research' led them to conclude] and they decided to commence their study with something so uncertain! They were non-muslims but obviously they had their reasons which the camels bones helped serve.

About the contradictions between teachings of Paul and jesus,
Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the laws of past prophets but to confirm every single letter of them till the end of time. In the book of Matthew if I'm not mistaken.

But apparently, due to Paul's inventions, christians dis regard the law of Moses. This can also be seen in the fact that jesus obviously a Jew, he supports circumcision and was circumcised. Also the fact that the don't eat pork but christians do, or the fact that your bible clearly forbids shell fish but christians gobble the heck out of these things.

Jesus Himself said Matthew 15:11,"not that which goes into a mouth defiles a man but that which comes out. Jesus came to fulfil the ceremonial law and give power to enable those that believe on Him to fulfil the moral law in its deeper dimension as revealed in the sermon on the mount. Besides, Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles not as a preacher of the ceremonial law but of the Gospel and the power given us to fulfil the moral law by the power of the Spirit, in fulfilment of prophecies given in the OT that the Gospel will include the gentiles. Besides, the vision God gave Peter in Acts 10 confirms this. :

The Torah was a book of laws, the bible has no laws but as the bible says, it confirms the laws of the Torah. I.e its law was to follow that of the Torah

pls Which bible are you referring to? The law came by Moses but even that made allowances for hardness of heart. Grace came by Jesus because the demands in the NT are higher and no allce is made for hard hearts.

.So if christians these days don't follow the bible or its laws , they don't follow the laws of God but that of man, it's evident in the way christians are becoming more tolerant of adultery faggotry and other heinous acts, because the laws of man are flexible, but that Of God is rigid.

Sweeping generalisations!

You may claim to be against them now, but seeing as the crusaders who brought the religion to you are starting to become the opposite of what they sold to you, it won't be long before you follow suit.

Your thoughts based on sweeping generalisations! Even when RC was at its worst there were still protestants who held to the truth! You appear to assume that all christians accept these corruptions. They were prophesied b4 hand and we take Christ's command to be watchful serious.

KellamLeTorneau:
http://time.com/6662/the-mystery-of-the-bibles-phantom-camels/

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/20/world/meast/do-camel-bones-discredit-the-bible/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2551511/Do-camels-prove-Bible-INACCURATE-Archaeologists-reveal-mammals-domesticated-900BC-centuries-Biblical-characters-rode-them.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

About the camels, read any of the articles above.

Various articles have been written about the study carried out by university of tel aviv, which used camel bones to date the earliest time camels were in that part of the world. They conducted their research and concluded the earliest time as 900BC, long after the bible claims in some verses that certain people rode them as seen below.

Genesis 37:25 'Then they sat down to eat a meal. And as they raised their eyes and looked, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing aromatic gum and balm and myrrh, on their way to bring them down to Egypt.'
Genesis 24:10 'Then he loaded ten of Abraham’s camels with all kinds of expensive gifts from his master, and he traveled to distant Aram-naharaim.'
Genesis 24:61 'Then Rebekah arose with her maids, and they mounted the camels and followed the man. So the servant took Rebekah and departed.'
Source: KnowingJesus.com


This research was was conducted by non muslims. This further re asserts the claims by modern historians that the bible has been tampered with and that its some contents aren't as old or original as claimed.

The problem of study , and the research methodology adopted suggests that the researchers were biased from the start. You'll notice that I said your proofs should be from history or bible, [except you are a believer in darwinism where bones discovered are claimed to be millions of years old!] the former as a believable primary source is still accessible since the nation concerned still exists.
The use of bones is indeed misleading. They might discover a camel's bone (now the camel in question might have died perhaps at the period their 'research' led them to conclude] and they decided to commence their study with something so uncertain! They were non-muslims but obviously they had their reasons which the camels bones helped serve.

About the contradictions between teachings of Paul and jesus, I'll give you one example.

Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the laws of past prophets but to confirm every single letter of them till the end of time. In the book of Matthew if I'm not mistaken.

But apparently, due to Paul's inventions, christians dis regard the law of Moses. This can also be seen in the fact that jesus obviously a Jew, he supports circumcision and was circumcised. Also the fact that the don't eat pork but christians do, or the fact that your bible clearly forbids shell fish but christians gobble the heck out of these things.

Jesus Himself said Matthew 15:11,"not that which goes into a mouth defiles a man but that which comes out. Jesus came to fulfil the ceremonial law and give power to enable those that believe on Him to fulfil the moral law in its deeper dimension as revealed in the sermon on the mount. Besides, Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles not as a preacher of the ceremonial law but of the Gospel and the power given us to fulfil the moral law by the power of the Spirit, in fulfilment of prophecies given in the OT that the Gospel will include the gentiles. Besides, the vision God gave Peter in Acts 10 confirms this. :

The Torah was a book of laws, the bible has no laws but as the bible says, it confirms the laws of the Torah. I.e its law was to follow that of the Torah

pls Which bible are you referring to? The law came by Moses but even that made allowances for hardness of heart. Grace came by Jesus because the demands in the NT are higher and no allce is made for hard hearts.

.So if christians these days don't follow the bible or its laws , they don't follow the laws of God but that of man, it's evident in the way christians are becoming more tolerant of adultery faggotry and other heinous acts, because the laws of man are flexible, but that Of God is rigid.

Sweeping generalisations!

You may claim to be against them now, but seeing as the crusaders who brought the religion to you are starting to become the opposite of what they sold to you, it won't be long before you follow suit.

Your thoughts based on sweeping generalisations! Even when RC was at its worst there were still protestants who held to the truth! You appear to assume that all christians accept these corruptions. They were prophesied b4 hand and we take Christ's command to be watchful serious.

mujahid1339:
but the second man may have been already poor

Yes. But the focus of Jesus was not to help either to get wealth, but help them in seeking the kingdom and,while the moral obligation remains constant,the terms/cost of a personal walk as Christ's disciple varies.
But apart from the moral obligations (sermon on the mount which is fundamental) the cost of discipleship for all varies!

Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea etc were also disciples but they were not asked to do same (follow Jesus physically).

Zacchaeus was another rich man but he did what he did of his own volition (since he got most of his wealth by deception,it was only proper that in making his way right, efforts would be made to rectify past actions) not by commandment.

In fact Jesus did not repeat same command to Zacchaeus by asking him to leave his household and follow Him (physically) even though he also was a rich man.
It's all about a personal relationship with Him.

mujahid1339:
you xtians keep running from verses like this; Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,follow me."

Kindly quote the passage where that was spoken to the disciples as a pre-condition. Many things were said to various individuals which applies to them. Examples:

Mark 10: 17,21

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

compare with
Mark 5:18,19,20

18 And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel


To the rich man he said follow me (physically). To the delivered man he said go home and share your testimony to others. The cost of discipleship for both was great but different:
The one was enslaved by his much possessions while the other by shame/stigma and bad reputation of life under influence and he that will
surrender to Christ as Lord must be prepared to dethrone these idols or lords (due to the control they exert on such a person). They vary from person to person.

Corollary? The passage you alluded to was not one of those commands to the disciples and followers in general but a condition of discipleship to a man who came to Christ. (for another, it was the cost of being satisfied without a decent accommodation Luke 9:58)
(Back to the focus of the thread)