₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

Lol. . . I was only offering help, and my persuasions are borne out of having carefully studied that verse in Heb. 9:27. The one thing that came across to me is that you were beginning to sound argumentative without offering an alternative opinion if you were not satisfied with my inputs. Let me assure you: I'm not the writer of the Bible, and to keep questioning the rendition of the verse is simply to question the Word of God. What you read in my lines are my persuasions of the verse in its contexts.

Perhaps you should give it a careful study and offer us your views: you might do well to add to our understanding, rather than long drawn-out debates on just one point.

That said, I think if you take a look again at the verse, it does not drive just one point hinged on the word "once". Verse 27 is illustrative of verse 28: both are connected, and to just hinge this discussion on that one word is counter-productive. However, if your concern is basically about that one word, your will get help by understanding how David himself said in I Kings 2:2 - "I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man."

Might I say that "the way of all the earth" does not conflict with what I sahred earlier, for the patriarch was stating the same truth as that physical death is the common experience of men. Some men may experience death more than once; but Heb. 9:27 is not saying that men can experience death only once! neither does it say that judgement takes place immediately upon death.

Cheers.

@lafile,

No vex . . . the delay was due to some connection problems.

lafile:
The questions from TV01 and your reply have raised some questions in my mind.
When u say men must die at least once (i.e. possibly twice) it gives credence to those who believe in Ghosts.

1. "it is the common lot of (appointed unto) men to experience death at least once"
Physical death is the common experience of everyman - that is what is meant by the common lot - appointed unto men to experience death at least once. It does not mean that no one can experience physical death twice - for Lazarus who was raised from the dead later died. The expression is a general understanding of what men experience in commonality.

The Bible certainly shows that there is such a thing as "ghosts" (in the sense of disembodied spirits or incorporeal spirits): "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:37-39).

Some people may find it difficult to believe that ghosts were real even in Biblical contexts; but the narative above shows clearly that the disciples were very aware that such phenomena were common knowledge to the people.

lafile:
More so when you use the phrase when all things would have run their course.

That phrase was to convey the sense of the Day when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to judge the world,a dn when death would be no more (Rev. 21:4 - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away".

lafile:
Can you give a reply to the question by TV01 that cuts out the possibility of Ghosts ( or like one thread a few months ago said, dead people paying bus fares)

In addition to what was explained above, ghosts (disembodied spirits) were a real phenomena even in the days of the apostles. As far back as I Sam. 28., the phenomena of ghosts or spirits of the departed were well known (read the whole chapter to see the point).

In all this, God warns believers to not engage in communicating with the departed - for that is tantamount to necromancy (Deut. 18:10-12).

Cheers.

TV01,

Many thanks for the insightful enquiries. However, let me clear a few issues:

1. I agree with yours about reincarnation not taught in the Bible.

2. The rendering of Heb. 9:27 is not wrong, as is given in most translations and versions: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

3. The fact that people have been raised from the dead does not conflict with the verse above. It rather points out the following: (a) it is the common lot of (appointed unto) men to experience death at least once; (b) judgement does not take place immediately upon death: rather, "after this" - after the common lot of men has run its course - at the end of it all, then the judgement takes place.

Let me expatiate:

(a) the common lot of men to experience death at least once:
This does not stretch the idea that all men must die at least once; for in I Cor. 15:51-52 we are given the mystery that some will be alive and not have experienced death when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. The construct of Heb. 9:27 is a general sense of what is common to all men; and that at the last, when all things would have run their course, then the judgement takes place.

(b) the judgement does not take place immediate upon death:
Notice that it is a specific judgement here referenced - "the judgement". Of course, we know that this occurs only at the end of the age when Jesus returns for expressly that purpose. We understand this from the fact that verse 27 illustrates verse 28; as if to say, "Just as men die once, so Christ died once" - to strengthen the fact that both the judgement of men (at the end of the age) and the sacrifice of Christ for salvation occur once without the hint of repetition.

I hope this helps and I've tried to understand your enquiry.

Cheers.

@TV01,

Notice my phraseology: "One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27" - I didn't say that is the only verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation.

Now the text you might have been alluding to:

II Kings 13:21
"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."

First, this does not indicate reincarnation, as you well know; for reincarnation and rising from the dead are not the same thing. The former speaks of an idea that a dead person is re-birthed as a baby and assumes another personality. That is totally antithetical to a rising from the dead, where people never lose their identity.

The case of Hebrews 9:27 is a summing up of stated divine judgement that men will face when the Judge sits expressly for that purpose. It does not suppose that men who rise from the dead as in the afore-mentioned miracles, will not be judged; rather, it affirms that all will stand before God to give an accounting of their lives on earth - at that Day.

The strength os this is that a man being miraculously raised from the dead comes in his own personality and identity - not as in the case of reincarnation into someone else's personality. On that Day, we can be sure that John the Baptist will stand distinguished from Elijah the prophet; as well everyone else. No one will stand before God in that day with multiple identities of reincarnation.

@Analytical,

Glad to have you back. Hope your weekend was smashing!

Analytical:
Please support yourself with the relevant scriptures that show gender distinctions in service.

In one of my previous entries, I outlined the equality of men and women in both creation and salvation; but offered with texts to the point that this equality is not carried over into service.

For the Scripture to even mention that a woman ought not to teach (I Tim. 2:12) establishes this distinction in gender as far as service is concerned.

I also offered that it is irrational that the Bible would forbid women teaching their husbands at home while permitting them to teach other husbands present in church! The YLT got it wrong, and you can get a good Greek lexicon to show you why.

Analytical:
I agree wholeheartedly, but not in a gender sense. Notice it says all members. Simply put, we don't all have the same office. Some are pastors, others prophets, some evangelists etc. This is talking about disctinction in office and not in gender.

If you remain on that one verse and interpret it privately on its own, slanted inferences will fill this page, because that would be in open violation of the principles of interpreting Scripture (see II Pet. 1:20).

That the Bible teaches that we don't all have the same office should make us dilligently gather our conclusions as to each person's role from other verses to the point. And when you see both I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 in their full picture, then Rom. 12:4 fits in context.

Analytical:
Please refer to my earlier posts on this. It's addressing the problems and issues in the context having in mind the nature of the Corinthian church.

That may well be, but its application is universal.

Analytical:
If the women keep silence in church, then by implication, they should not even prophesy or sing in church.

That's the conclusion many people draw when they fail to see the context of "speak" in I Cor. 14:34.

It does not at all mean they should be mute; rather, it offers the understanding that a woman ought not to take a leading role as a speaker who addresses the church, such as a teacher would. The same sense is given in Acts 14:12 where Paul was called "the chief speaker" as he addressed the crowd.

That this verse applies universally at all times in every church is underscored by two important lines in verses 34 and 35:

". . .but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law"

". . . for it is a shame for women to speak in the church".

Notice the second line: it did not say it was a shame for "your women" (i.e., the Corinthian women, as if there was any adverbs or qualifier) to speak in the church; but rather, as it stands without any qualifier and makes it a universal application by simply using "women" in general terms: "it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

We definitely cannot go round this and limit it only to the situation at Corinth - that would be disregarding the fact of what the law says in the first place.

Analytical:
Agreed, the gifts (or speaking roles as you call it) are not the same. I did not infer that. There are clear differences between them, but I have not seen where the Holy Spirit says He cannot distribute to women as He wills.

The Holy Spirit does not confuse His distribution even among women.

Analytical:
Don't let us misinterpret scriptures. This verse adressed the usurping of authority. Don't take one and leave the other. The final decision making rests with the husband as the head and a wife should submit to that headship. However, not that the man should lord it over, nor the woman usurp that authority. Both are equally condemned in scriptures.

I've explained before that YLT doesn't help on that verse. Besides, why would it make sense that what was forbidden in the home setting becomes applicable in the church setting? If it seems to be condemning it in the home, how does it applaud it in the church?

Analytical:
I'm not reasoning based on tradition or feelings but on what the word says. If you ask my own opinion that's a separate issue. Let's leave the work of the Holy Spirit to Him to do. He distributes as He wills. Or are you saying He doesn't give women gifts as teachers?

I've offered from Tit. 2:3-5 an example of the sphere in which women are encouraged to teach. That does not make the setting as broad as to abrogate the other texts under review. To go beyond that into the sphere of the church at large is an abuse of authority that no Spirit-led woman can defend.

Women play excellent roles in the home and church, as well as in society. However, when it comes to the sphere of the church, God has laid down roles for each one.

lafile:
Unbelieving partner decides to get a divorce (for whatever reason) and remarries. where does this development leave the believeing christian? can he/she remarry?

1. "Unbelieving partner decides to get a divorce (for whatever reason) and remarries"
>> "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. . . But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. . ." [I Cor. 7:13 & 15].

2. "where does this development leave the believeing christian?"
>> ". . .In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." [I Cor. 7:15b]

3. "can he/she remarry?"
". . .In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved" (vs. 15).

Many blessings to you.

islampride:
shahan,
come here and learn some sense. is it that u have to just ramble anytime i post things here? why is it that u never respond to questions but just play around till its all over?

To assure you, I don't ramble and hardy take notice of your drabble anytime you post things here. You probably have your eyes closed to miss the answers already proffered in my previous entries.

islampride:
the reality of christianityis that it is nothing other thna misguidance,full of lies and contaraadictions, the only place in the world where 1+1+1=1.

That's true: it's the only faith where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit = one God.

Unlike Islam, Muhammad wasn't sure who was speaking, and the jinn of the Qur'an arrogated to themselves the same status as the prophet's *allah. Anyone reading the Qur'an will not need Harvard degree to see through the paganistic polytheism of Islam.

As for the lies you find in Christianity, I can understand where you are coming from. Your thinking is only linear, and you judge eveything by the contradictions and lies that Muhammad cooked up. It's not surprising that neither the Qur'an, the jinn, nor *allah came to Muhammad's aid as he trembled in the prospect of death - because he knew that his sins will undo him in that Day.

islampride:
wanting to deceive people with islam doesntnecessarily mean on this site or thread, i mean universally.

We know - that's exactly what Muhammad did with his universal deceit.

islampride:
think, dummie, think, if at all u can. nation of islam,5 %ers, the moorish temple etc. those r what i mean.

Okay, as a dummie with a thinking brain and an IQ above yours, I regret any links I formerly had with "the nation of Islam". But goodnews: Jesus helped me get out in time - and totally out from the biggest fraud of all - Muhammad's nation of marauding brigand, aka ISLAM.

islampride:
since they know islam is the real inclination of man, and the black man was muslim before your christian european slave masters came to africa, and the black man always wants to get back to his roots. because, deeper roots, stronger branches.

Did you make any sense in your drabble just now? European slave masters might have come to Africa pretending to bring Christianity; but Muhammad dwarfed their adventures by contrast. If the Europeans came to make slaves of black people, Muhammad came to kill, pillage, rape and enslave them (don't forget: with the Qur'an on his tongue and *allah's sword in his hands!).

@Islampride,

Fact on ground is that Muhammad did more than reach out to his belt - he struck Aisha on the chest such that it caused her pain. She said so herself, and any political gist you're cooking up here still does not wash Muhammad's double standards.

gists:
@shahan
What’s is your problem with the titles in the glorious Qur’an. I’ll advice you don’t focus on the title but the messages therein.

Yep, I did just that - went once again into the Qur'an and saw Muhammad's paganism highlighted there; he swore by everything - from the moon, to the star, to the sun, and the night! There's also swearing by "the angels who violently pull out the souls". You can view an outline of this in another thread where I highlighted some of  the paganistic symbols of swearing and oaths in Islam.

gists:
Looking for miracles, this exactly the problem with most xtians especially in Nigeria and that’s why many end up in Pastor King’s church and get burnt alive.

Try not using that as a cheap excuse to deride Christianity. A simple question was asked; and if you can't answer, zip up and don't try deviating to Reverend King's atrocities. Both bari_kade and I as Christians have expressed out minds on the verdict - Rev.-King deserves exactly what he got.

gists:
Will you not believe in your pastor if he doesn’t perform miracles?

Churches differ, but we are not taught to believe in our pastors - whether or not they perform miracles. Rather, we are taught to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and on Him alone.

gists:
In Islam we don’t emphasis miracle so as not to idolize our icon, thus effectively preventing people from worshiping him rather than God.

Just put it in simple English: "In Islam we don't have any miracles that *allah performed to better the lives of the needy; thus Muhammad was a fraud who sought to establish his religion by force of the sword."

gists:
However, if the miracle is your priority and not salvation, I’ll suggest you go and buy the documentary titled “The miracles of the Qur’an”

There is no salvation in Islam, nor is there a miracle in Islam. The so-called "miracles of the Qur'an" neither blessed those in need, nor authenticated the claim of Muhammad to be a prophet. Please list the "miracles" discussed in the book you recommended and let's see how *allah blessed the needy.

@ezeking, many blessings for that confession. You will not lose your reward according to what you know in God's Word.

islampride:
shahhan or whateva,
u the dumbest clown i ever seen,

. . . i need answers please. stop insulting , no side talking, straight forward answers please.

@Islampride,

I really don't mind your insults while pleading at the same time that I don't send any your way. Such is a fact of life and it's of little consequence to me.

islampride:
how would the son of god create man, where was God?
was He on vac?
face facts , thats a reasonable question for u again, stop running away. answer how will he be God when he has a dad, tha preceded him, and how will he be eterenal when there was a time that he was not alive?
he has a beginnign so definitely he  will have an end, so how would that be God?

I have offered some reasonable answers to address your questions in another thread: The Qur'an Fraud Contradictions or Great Truths?. There you will find answers to such questions as to the fact of Jesus eternal existence, His deity, and His death as Man while still upholding all things as God.

As to the Father's preceding Him, nowhere in the Qur'an or the Bible is that expression found; nor can you defend the idea that He had a beginning and therefore will have an end.

If you still are not clear after reading my rejoinders as referred, please get back to me and I'll oblige you a walk through the issues that becloud your thinking on the subject.

Cheers.

@Islampride,

Nevermind your reverse-education that you just exposed on the Forum. But a few lines about the questions you painted in red:

1. Jesus' deity (Godhhod) and humanity (Man) were never in conflict while He was on earth. The Bible declares that though He was God, He became a man in flesh: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. 9:5).

If you think that this was Paul's theology (as Muslim apologists know nothing better than to hate Paul), then understand that centuries before he penned those lines, it was revealed to other prophets that the Messiah was the Son of God (David's prophecy in Psa. 2:12) and the Mighty God (Isaiah's prophecy in Isa. 9:6) who has existed from eternity (Micah's prophecy in Mic. 5:2). It was this very same divine Messiah that would be pierced (the crucifixion) for our Redemption (Zechariah's prophecy in Zech. 10:12).

It is therefore not surprising that Muhammad surreptitiously did not mention the very same prophets that were well known in Israel who spoke of the Messiah as God Himself. Even David's Psalms are mentioned in the Qur'an; but Muslims will quickly banter to Muhammad's lie that the Bible has been corrupted, because David himself identified the Messiah as the Son of God.

2. When He was put to death, the Bible makes it expressly clear that His death was in the flesh: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2:14-15).

Christ's death in the flesh does not mean that He died as God and thus ceased to exist. Beyond the grave there is an existence that is very much active - the spiritual realms. That is why the Bible says that when Christ was put to death in the flesh, He went and preached to the spirits in prison (I Pet. 3:18-19). Even in death, He was still active - and that activity included the fact that He as God was still upholding (or sustaining) all things by the Word of His power (Heb. 1:3).

Again, if you think that was Peter's theology, please understand that the same prophets in the Old Testament that Muhammad cleverly missed out in the Qur'an, actually foretold of the events of Christ beyond the grave. One particular prophet, David, who was mentioned in the Qur'an, says in the Bible Psalms:

"Thou (i.e., Christ) hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them" (Psa 68:18 ).

How could He have ascended on high if He did not first descend into the lower parts of the earth (Eph. 4:9-10)? And that He did this for "the rebellious also" shows how far reaching is His mercy towards the most hateful of sinners.

3. The very Son of God who came in flesh, died and rose again, has done all things to provide for man's salvation in such a way that no other being can accomplish. Muhammad accords Him wonderful respects in the Qur'an; but for all that, the Quraish prophet will still stand to be judged before the very One he denied - Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Don't base your comfort and hope in the Qur'an or Muhammad's religion. That is clear paganistic polytheism - and Muhammad knew it. That is why he was not confident of his end and the judgement day; because his multiplied sins were already stirring him to divine judgement.

You can know the loving grace of the Saviour today instead of basing your arguments on a Qur'an that didn't even save its prophet. Jesus Christ alone is the Saviour.

Bless.

@belloti,

I had an Islamic background, and if anyone should know that the Qur'an is a book of twisted tales and denials of authentic truths, then I should know.

Many Muslims would often appeal to "logic" as a way of understanding the Qur'an and the Hadith; and when one reads the clear meaning of a text, Muslim apologists are first to cry out that people either quote texts out of contexts or haven't done an analysis.

No one with an open mind and good brains will fail to see who Muhammad was and what he sold the Arabs in his refined paganism. That is why I opted to join the Forum and debate these issues so that people will know what they do not often realise about Islam.

@damosky,

Thanks for yours, and here's a link where I'll be posting some outlines to some of these questions.

Who Was Jesus Before He Became A Man?

To answer your question succinctly here: He was God before He became Man. The reasons why He was not a created angel are given on the page to the link above. More questions welcome.

Bless.

@belloti,

belloti:
You guys are amazing. No sex in heaven? oh my God. How can you even say that?

Does it surprise you? I'm not surprised you would object - because that's what Muhammad thought and repudiated. He denounced the very idea that there won't be sex in heaven, and made up the idea that anyone who died for *allah's cause would inherit virgins and young boys for the express purpose of frolicking in celestial sex.

Let me ask you this: after all the sex you have here on earth, what results from the idea of having sex in heaven? Just for the fun of it - or you also expect children to be born as well . . . in heaven?

You really do not understand what Jesus taught: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

Question: what do the angels of God do in heaven - and do their activities include having sex in heaven?

I said earlier that the very idea of no sex in heaven was one of the biggest issue Muhammad had - for he did not know the power of righteousness and thought it impossible for man to exist in heaven in absolute purity.

belloti:
. Anyway thats the biblical contraptions but then what else do you get to do in heaven?

Read the rest in Revelation. Get back to me and we'll offer you what you might have missed.

belloti:
i wasnt speaking the mind of women i was only asking you to assist in telling me from the womens' perspective. i knew how a woman mostly loves their men and probably will love to stick with them come rain come shine.

You can never guarantee that in Muhammad's theology. A woman has no choice in paradise, and can be given to just about any man whom the prophet and his *allah deem fit.

belloti:
Babyosisi, i love those biblical quotes about inheriting wives. That doesnt even sound in tune with your own perception am sure. But then its the Bible.

At least, as a thinking man you know what doesn't sound in tune with anyone's perception; and if you read issues in context, you see that those who came with the question to Jesus were cooking up a fictitious gist. Jesus used the occasion to establish a reality of what happens in heaven.

@luckyCO,

Rest your heart - Christianity has no verse in support of re-incarnation. The only One who was incarnated is the Lord Jesus Christ, for the express purpose of giving His life in the flesh in order to redeem us:

The Incarnation: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

The Purpose: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pet. 3:18 ).

One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27 >> "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There's no coming back this side of existence, just as the rich man had requested but was denied his wish in Luke 16:27-31.

Now, John the Baptist and Elijah.

When Jesus affirmed about John that "this is Elias, which was for to come"_{Matt.11:14, KJV} - He was not inferring that John had reincarnated as Elijah. He was using a very familiar Jewish expression that pointed out the reality of a thing in proverbial language. In effect, He was saying that John was the one who fulfilled the prophesy of Elijah's coming in that context.

How are we to understand Elijah's coming as a forerunner of Christ? Not a literal fulfillment of the man Elijah appearing; but that the one who was to come would appear among the people of Israel 'in the spirit and power of Elijah':

"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17).

John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah's coming in the context discussed by Christ to His disciples, but He was not making any inference to the concept of reincarnation.

@Islampride,

Jesus Christ is not like Muhammad. The Son of God created Muhammad a man; but the sinful Quraish prophet didn't like to hear that - for the simple reason that if he acknowledged that, then he would have to forsake his sins.

Muhammad loved sin - the Qur'an and Hadiths prove that to the letter. After his career, the sinner cried that he did not know what his *allah would do to him. We can guarantee you that he will stand before the very same One he denied, and will be severely punished for his atrocities.

Keep calm and keep reading - you might learn a thing or two that will help you embrace the Saviour before it is too late, and escape the same fate as Muhammad charted for himself.

Cheers.

babyosisi:
Then they ask you to pay it with a credit card,in other words owe American express and Visa at 26.99% interest and give to them.
In addition surrender January salary in all its entirety and neglect your bills and dependents.
. . .
Christians wake up!!!,these people are reading some other Bible and it ends with a lot of zeros

May God help this blessed country!

It's been a very busy weekend for me; but I trust the sequel will be posted later today - and you can look forward to something equally good.

islampride:
like minds they say think alike, who in this damned world doesnt know the reality of christianity? but who again doesnt know the falsehood of these cult like groups trying to claim islam to deceive black people ?
you're all the same, the questioner and the questioned.

And what, my dear, is the reality of Christianity that you talked about?

Why would anyone want to claim Islam to deceive black people after the thorough washing it has received on the Forum?

babyosisi:
The [b]crescent moon symbol was used since 2100 BC in paganism. . . All the Arabs at the Kaba in Mecca worshipped the moon god Hubal. Crescent moon is the official symbol of Islam on top of every Mosque in the world and beside the Kaba on top of the Maqam Ibrahim! It is the last remaining polytheistic remnant of ancient moon worship under a new sanitized monotheistic veil.[/b]

from the site above

Has anyone wondered why Muhammad had a few chapters in the Qur'an titled by the elements he swore by? Take a look:

Qur'an 53 - AN-NAJM (THE STAR)

Qur'an 54 - AL-QAMAR (THE MOON)

Qur'an 72 - AL-JINN (THE JINN)

Qur'an 91 - ASH-SHAMS (THE SUN)

Qur'an 92 - AL-LAIL (THE NIGHT)

. . . these are all elements of his paganistic background, and by which the "messenger" received revelations of solemn oaths and thus revealed Muhammad's devotion to the pagan Arab deities of his day. Here is a list of the paganistic elements of the oaths:

Q.93 vs.1 & 2
I swear by the early hours of the day,
And the night when it covers with darkness.

Q.100 vs.1 - 3
I swear by the runners breathing pantingly,
Then those that produce fire striking,
Then those that make raids at morn,

Q.91 vs.1 - 7
I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
And the moon when it follows the sun,
And the day when it shows it,
And the night when it draws a veil over it,
And the heaven and Him Who made it,
And the earth and Him Who extended it,
And the soul and Him Who made it perfect,

Q.75 vs.1 - 2
Nay! I swear by the day of resurrection.
Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.

Q.74 vs.32 - 34
Nay; I swear by the moon,
And the night when it departs,
And the daybreak when it shines;

Q.79 vs.1 - 4
I swear by the angels who violently pull out the souls of the wicked,
And by those who gently draw out the souls of the blessed,
And by those who float in space,
Then those who are foremost going ahead.


One should therefore not be surprised about the idolatory that the Quraish prophet sold to Muslims; and instead of investigating the paganism in Islam, they would rather defend them and swear by anything and everything. So, it becomes obvious why the moon and star were included as symbols of Islam.

Life jail with strict restrictions say nothing about punitive measures for killers with a sinister twist. If anything, apart from wasting tax-payers money on them, it only fertilizes the social womb that gives birth to such wicked brood.

mamaput:
Nigeria still has firing squad.Let them shoot him

Okay. That's one suggestion - thanks.

Now, anyone else??

mamaput:
There are better way of killing a man than hanging .

Just for the record, someone petrol-bombs your loved one and is taken to court for his crime. Can you please suggest better ways than hanging?

Ta-ra!

Welcome back anytime when Dr Kizar sends you on next errand.

Great then - we have already proven that your reverse-scholarship need not bother anyone here on Nairaland. We have talked and are still talking, regardless of the 45,000 users at Orkut.

Cheers.

JackSnake:

shahan link=topic=24566.msg817569#msg817569 date=1168791651:
JackSnake, in the first place, does your username say anything about self-demonizing?

Irrelevent superflous bullshit.

Ok, as long as the bullshit is yours.
Glad to know that I touched a nerve.

JackSnake:
Others ? You seemed to be more concerned what others do and not what the author of this post has done.

That's because, unlike you and your crew, my thinking is not linear. To suppose that this thread contains the posts of only one person is not only beggarly, it also smacks heavily of the reverse-education characteristic of you and your crew at Orkut.

JackSnake:

shahan link=topic=24566.msg817569#msg817569 date=1168791651:
The blatant lying you see in others that you fail to see closer home to yourself is a malady newly discovered indeed.

Again irrelevent this has nothing to do with this post.

Is that because you have nothing better to offer and your crew at Orkut are just exactly as described?

JackSnake:
Their is nothing wrong with Nairaland. Its just that these question are extremely old and since the length of this topic is so huge , but dividing it among 45,000 users will make it easy for me to prove these claims wrong.

If the questions are extremely old, why not leave them alone and move on to update yourself with the 21st century like everyone else? And if you couldn't tackle them here until you recycle the same extremely old question among your pilot team of 45,000 users, how convincing is it then that you're able to handle any question at all by yourself?

JackSnake:
We have members who can speak Arabic and understand semetic languages and their usage. (like Dr.Kizar) , students of Islamic Jursiprudence etc. So if someone tries to mistranslates a verse it becomes easier for us to spot it and kick that person out.

Indeed; but Dr. Kizar is so poor of Arabic scholarship that he is yet to grow up and recognize the conflagrated and political translations of the Qur'an by Muslims themselves who don't give two hoots about Dr. Kizar's school of thought.

JackSnake:
And yes since most of these question are asked so many times we will just direct you to a topic where all of these question have been answered.

Answered with the flawed out-of-context quotes by your 45,000 users, yes??

JackSnake:
In short i don't want to waste my time.

What a pity it took you this long to realise your loss! 

The thing is that from the onset, you ought to recognize that Nairaland is not where you just rascally vroom in and think everyone's as low as your reverse education takes you. Here you'll find very intellectual people who are far more intelligent than me - and next time, please knock before you come in!

JackSnake:
Not only have i proved that the author of this most has commited an act of plagirism but i have also proved that he lies and uses misquotes intentionally to demonize muslims.

JackSnake, in the first place, does your username say anything about self-demonizing?

Second, the case has been proven once too many times that Muslim apologists have plagiarized materials from other websites and brought them here as though they were the authors (nevermind the misquotes, lies and surreptitious inferences that trail them).

I'm least bothered about such; but more to the point that the quotes from the Qur'an and Hadiths are authenticated proofs of Muhammad's atrocities and gaffs, that says a lot.

JackSnake:
And most of the stuff in this topic has been taken from one site.And i have already proved that the author of this post is a liar.

If you want to remain on that one note as defence for Muhammad's fraud, please return to your Orkut site and let's move this discourse forward. There are several posts on this thread from various contributors; and if you can successfully prove that all the quotes in the various rejoinders are lies, then the point would have been made that the Qur'an and Hadiths are frauds.

JackSnake:
In a proper discourse using quotes out of context , misquotes and blatant lying are not permitted.

Preach that to those who quote Deut. 18 out of context to prove Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible. Preach that to those who quote John 14-16 as proof texts that Muhammad was the Comforter. The blatant lying you see in others that you fail to see closer home to yourself is a malady newly discovered indeed.

JackSnake:
A person only needs to prove once that a person is a liar in order to debunk his/her claims and i have already done.

Right. Then I take it that those Muslim apologists quoting Deut. 18 and John 14-16 as texts for Muhammad are liars - and we have already debunked them.

JackSnake:
Still if you want to talk about Islam join orkut.

And what is wrong with Nairaland??

@JackSnake,

The excuse that people quote the Qur'an or Hadith out of context is a whimper with no substance. I am aware that some people will lie to defend their persuasions on both sides of the fence - Muslims and Christians on various websites; and that is bad enough.

However, the people you meet on Nairaland who discuss the issues of Muhammad's questionable practices have made reference to authenticated historical facts to the point from both the Qur'an and the Hadiths. That you see one and all as "out of context" is your convenient way of denying the obvious. Nice try, but try again.

The only way you can deny the obvious is to deny that the Qur'an said any such thing as we have severally referenced on this Forum. And if that is what you're about, then it won't be worth time wasting to engage in a discourse where even a Muslim apologist would come up denying the statements in his Qur'an. Kimberly and Ali Sina or not, the fraud of Muhammad's claim of prophethood is glaring; and no political cosmetic to dress him up is going to change the facts on ground.

Cheers.

babs787:
We or our that ALLAH uses in many verses of the Quran does not mean the plural of GOD BUT THE WORD OF RESPECT which even an ordinary person like you and I always use for a single person.

In the first place, who is your *allah* respecting??

Second, does it then mean that your *allah* is like "an ordinary person like you and I"? So, if your *allah* says "We created you for the first time," you and I can say the same thing and still be singular??

babs787:
For example, if somebody knock the door from outside, the person inside will say “who are you” “are” in this speech stands for “plural of respect”.

Is this why others have accused you of poor scholarship and half-baked education? Sorry, but you missed the point. The word "are" is a verb, but such words as "We" and "Our" are pronouns. The former is a linking verb, while the latter identify the speaker.

The whole point is not about verbs, but about the identity of the beings themselves. As long as several entities are claiming to have created, that is indicative of plural identities of beings, which expose Islam for the polytheism that it actually is in reality.

babs787:
Moreover, we use this word to ask person about his health “are you okay”? why not say “is you okay” or “who is you”?.

We don't say "who is you" because only the Quraish tribe speak English like that!

Meanwhile, don't transpose the verbs for the pronouns being discussed. We are not about verbs of "is" and "are" - the question is rather about the plural pronouns of "WE" "US" and "OUR" that the *allah* of the Qur'an uses for himself to defend the pretended monotheism of Islam.

babs787:
Using the word “we” or “our” does not mean that Allah is many.

Maybe not; but it rather means that the *allah* of Islam is not sure who actually created all things, and he has to haggle and share this title among his jinns as a way of appeasing them. Take me up on that and I'll oblige you the proof texts.

babs787:
In Arabic language for instance, when addressing one who is subordinate to you, you may address him with a singular pronoun ‘ANTA’ that is ‘you’ but where the addresse is superior (older) to the addresser, ‘ANTUM’ is usually used which is a nominate plural (you).

Excellent, and I give that to you with an applause.

However, how does that distinguish the *allah* of Islam from the men of the Arab tribes who speak of one another in such language? So, let's say one Arab man rides alone from Medina to Mecca: would he be correct to tell a younger Arab youth that, "We rode from Medina to Mecca"?? Do you see the implications of what you're trying so hard to defend with weak presumptions??

babs787:
In yoruba language (which am conversant with) in South West of Nigeria, the older usually addresses the younger ‘IWO’ meaning ‘YOU’ (singular) and the younger will addres the older “EYIN” that is “YOU” showing the way to address one person who should be respected or honoured due to his status which may be age or position.

Case already sorted between language constructs. My point is, would the same case apply to the one you worship in Islam?

babs787:
In the language of the Quran Arabic and many other languages, an elder or a senior of any sort may address himself or herself “we” instead of “I” (U MAY RESEARCH YOURSELF).

I've done extensive research on the languages of the oriental world; but I guarantee you that even the Arabs will tell you not one of them claims to be the creator! Besides, your whole defence collapses if you're trying to compare the *allah* as a senior to the Arabs!

babs787:
Having explained to you, let me back it up with the below verse to awaken you from the ignorant state and stop you from hiding behind this very issue.

Quran 14v52: this is a sufficient exposition for the people and that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He (Allah) is one and those possessed of understanding may mind.

If *allah* is one as he claims, it is a shame that he could not deny the claims of his jinns who arrogate to themselves his own prerogative. They claimed to have created man and all things; as well as being the ones that early muslims worship - and all your *allah* could do is whimper that weak verse of being "one". Quaint indeed.

babs787:
Based on the above explanation, I challenge you to explain the below to me

Genesis 1 v26: then God said “and now we will make human beings, they will be LIKE US and resemble US” (GOOD NEWS BIBLE)

Genesis 1 v26: and God went on to say “LET US make man in our image according to OUR likeness. (NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES)

WHY “US” AND “OUR” there?

Have you ever heard of the Trinity?

babs787:
After explaining the above, I want you to explain “be like us or likeness of God”, “resemble us” and God’s image. because GOD SAID IN

Isaiah 40v18: to whom then will you LIKEN GOD, OR WHAT LIKENESS COMPARE WITH HIM.

The verses you quoted are self-explanatory: no one compares to God in His awesome power, majesty and works. The fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God does not make man God Himself!

babs787:
Isaiah 40V35: to whom then will you COMPARE ME, and that I should be LIKE HIM.says the Holy one.

Again, no one compares to Him in all His glory! How about that for the *allah* of the Qur'an who couldn't make up his mind??

@topic,

Both Judaism and Christianity preached the same God who established them. The former predated and prophesied of the latter; but that doesn't make them opposed to or antagonistic to each other. In Judaism is prophesied the Messiah; in Christianity is the fulfillment of the that prophesy -

Matt. 11:13 - "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."

Luke 24:27 - "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He (Jesus) expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself."

Acts 3:24 - "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days."

Acts 10:43 - "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Bless you, ope_emi.

I hear you - and that's what Christians have done here: give the state its due civil process to mete out deserving punishment on a murder!