₦airaland Forum

@Najm,

Hi, and welcome onboard. I just have a question for you: have you read John 1:1 in simple English - what does it say?

@damosky,

A question for you as well: before Jesus became a Man, who was He?
When you find a salient answer to that, then your enquiry would have been resolved. If you still would not have found it, then i'll come back and share with you. Cheers.

@opia,

How bodi? Do I take it that you didn't try to answer my earlier questions (as it was not obligatory); or, that you had no answers at all? Pardon me, but I had wanted to point out a very important element in your exposition of John 1:1 - it might interest you what the Bible says, even for some of us who have a very poor grasp of the Greek.

@m4malik,

Thanks for adding to my understanding.

@Bobbyaf,

Lol, you didn't quite make an impact with the latest and only tried to dress up your previous flaws. Nice try, but harder next time, perhaps?

Bobbyaf:
Really now! You see, when persons lack the defensive reasoning, they accuse falsely. Instead of using scripture to buffer your arguments, you simply resort to accusations

First, not one of my pointers have been conclusively refuted in your rejoinders - so there's no need for the hooters about being falsely accused. Second, where necessary, I've highlighted issues with Scripture texts to the point. If you missed that, too bad you did.

Bobbyaf:
All my arguments are based on scriptures.

Including the wrong inferences you draw, yes??

Bobbyaf:
Ok, lets say I used the wrong expression, when I said "professed churches". Technically it would include the SDA church, since we are also making a profession, and I appreciate that point you're making

Finally, at least that's one point conclusively refuted!

Bobbyaf:
but deep down you know the real point I am making.

I've pointed them out as well.

Bobbyaf:
You know that there has to be one true flock, that has to be the exception.

I know this much - that one flock is not SDA; and I've stated so time and again.

Bobbyaf:
You know that there can be one truth.

As contained in the Bible; not as interpreted by Ellen G. White and her crew.

Bobbyaf:
The problem with you is that you find yourself in one denom that believes its ok for different churches to preach anything they like, as long as they call on Jesus.

If you can reference where in my rejoinders that inference was made, then point made. If not, I still don't envy your official title on nairaland.

Bobbyaf:
Would you feel comfortable worshipping with JWs? They are a denom too. Would you feel comfortable worshipping with Mormons? They are a denom too.

Read just above: where you have read me defending JW or Mormon doctrines, please reference it. If not, you're perfectly fulfilling your title ascribed you by nferyn.

Bobbyaf:
And guess what? Every denom has made a claim of uniqueness. And that is why they are called denoms. They have someting that they claim is not being taught by anyone else.

In that case, the SDA is not different from the Mormon Church in having condemned all other churches, sorry to say. I'm not the one preaching my "denom", and I'm grateful to have been brought up to preach Christ Jesus and not make "condemning" other churches a part of my faith.

Bobbyaf:
You find pleasure in hitting me because I am honest about my expression, and you're not.

I didn't know you'd sob over that. No vex - you provided the punches, and they landed where you least expected. As for honesty, no vex again - I'm not the one being promoted as the fountainhead of liars on Nairaland, remember??

Bobbyaf:
No don't give me that! God knows your heart!

He always does, whether you take it or not.

Bobbyaf:
You see how non-sensical your argument has become? That was my qualifier Shahan. And deep down you know that that is not the point I am making.

Which amounts to zero as long as you keep spinning around what you've been taught by rote.

Bobbyaf:
I am not condemning christians Shahan. I am pointing out an important biblical truth.

An important biblical truth that lumps all professing christian churches as "babylon"?? Did you say "not condemning"?? I hear you.

Bobbyaf:
Go take up your issues with John the prophet who said:

"come out of her my people, " Rev.18:4

First, I don't have any issues with any of the apostles. I do have issues with legalistic men who condemn all other Christians but their own, especially when they give prophecies that have failed, and their morphed systems keep changing dates and making excuses for their failed prophecies.

Rev. 18:4 did not ask Christians to come out of Christian churches where God is worshipped in Spirit and in truth, so that they can flock enmass to an exclusive SDA. My interpretation may not help you (because you don't know any better); but whenever you can find it stated in Revelation that the SDA is the "exclusive" or only organization (remnant church, you call it??) that the Bible calls "the Body of Christ", then come back and let's talk. That's an amicable offer.

Bobbyaf:
This argument doesn't make any sense, and it counters what Jesus taught. He said "other sheep I have which are not of this flock, they I must bring in, and there shall be one flock, and one shephard"

The argument doesn't make any sense to you because all you know how to read is SDA material. Could you just please put down your religious goggles for a moment and study the Bible as the Word of God? When Jesus spoke of the one flock in that text, where did He interpret it as the SDA?

Besides, I'll give you a few more texts for your study:

Matt. 26:31 - "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" >> [Is "the sheep of the flock" scattered abroad equated as the SDA??]

Luke 12:32 - "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." >> [does "little flock" translate as "SDA"; or was the Kingdom meant only for SDA-ists?]

John 10:16 - "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." >> [do "this fold" and "one fold" translate as the SDA?]

Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." >> [so was Paul addressing the SDA in Ephesus when speaking of "all the flock" and "the church of God"?]

. . . several others if you may. The problem is that you always want to see things through the spectacles of the SDA doctrines, and that's why you keep sounding off your inconsistencies and posting your sobs in a public forum.

I don't try to treat you bad, Bobby, trust me - nevermind the fact that your pretended erudition and lack of focus are doing you in on a subject you haven't grasp properly. What I kick against is the legalism of "prophets" whose prophecies have failed, and whose doctrines you keep pandering about while dejecting other authentic Christians who are non-SDA-ists (though, you little realise the fact).

Bobbyaf:
But while I agree in general about God's grace and salvation by faith, unfortunately the topic is entitled Let us stick to the topic at hand. I am 100% for salvation by grace through faith, which cannot be debated.

You may say so, until some other time. Anyhow, tell me this: does your own branch of the SDA encourage their members about the assurance of salvation? In SDA, do members know for certain that they are saved?

Bobbyaf:
But according to Christ that cannot be a true definition. Christ speaks to one flock. The fact that Christ predicted that false teacers would arise even more magnifies the point. Every shephard knows the danger of one sheep straying from the flock.

And was William Miller not a false teacher who fits the bill of what you just described?

Bobbyaf:
I agree with you on that point, but I am not using a church badge per se to judge people.

Titters. You leep denying what you actually have done - only when they are directly pointed out to you.

Bobbyaf:
I am simply basing my arguments on the reality, that a long as false teachings are being taught by denoms, there would have to be a body of believers that still has truth un-defiled. This body is what Christ is coming back for. A spotless body.

Amen, bro. The problem is that the SDA does not represent your euphoric description as long as it was simply a morphed denomination from the Millerites.

Bobbyaf:
It so happens that I believe that the SDA church for now represents that denom that has come closest to what I personally believe to truly represents "thus saith the Lord"

I'm happy for you if that calms your fears. Good for you: celebrate it. However, give other Christians outside the SDA the privilege of rejoicing in Jesus Christ as He is heralded as LORD in their denominations.

Let me make it simpler for you: look again at my very first post on this thread and see my gist that I do not advocate just about any kind of system under the umbrella name "Christian Church." I hope you saw that. However, if in any denomination Jesus Christ is honoured as Lord and His Word rules in righteousness and holiness in the lives of the saints, bless His holy Name all the more! When the Corinthian Church threatened to scatter themselves into many factions, Paul did not advocate a policy of calling them out to his SDA system of a remnant church - because he had none! Rather, he simply recognized them all as brothers and sisters in Christ without a denominational badge. Take me up on that, and it won't be a bother to share amicably with you.

Bobbyaf:
If you or anyone else don't feel that way thats your right, and perogative.

Good then: respect others' prerogative.

Bobbyaf:
Jesus, Paul all alluded to a time when rampant deception would become the order of the day.

Aye. . . but did they as well recommend that the SDA would take care of it - especially on the basis of the failed prophecy of the Second Coming in 1844??

Bobbyaf:
All I am saying is that christians in general should make it their duty to find that denom that represents God's end-time church.

Aye again. . . and that end-time church (previously called "remnant church", or "being exclusive" is the SDA, yes??

Don't pay me any heed if you find me too much of a headache. I love to thrash out issues like this because I know people who have suffered from "the Great Disappointment".

Ta-ra!

ThiefOfHearts:
Hope there's no reason for the "hostility", babyosisi

I shouldn't think so.

However, perhaps more could be said if people have further concerns - here or in the previous threads. Afterall, knowledge will be shared both ways.

Peace

gbade. x:
o' boy, where babs dey now? Abi him too don go grow bia bia .

He's off to measure the length.

mrpataki:
So he was a Cele Worshipper!!!!!!
No wonder all the while.
You know must cele people never hear word once, you have to keep drumming it now and then.

Loruko Jesu!
Loruko Jesu!
Loruko Jesu!

So i guess you have to keep drumming the answers to him every now and then before he understands you a bit

No wooonnddeeerr!!

You know how it works. . . our friends must always look for an excuse to justify Muhammad in cleverly woven subterfuge. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not - they just have to propound 'research' for them.

belloti:
Shahan, don't you think its easier to notice a sign of adultery on pregnant woman than a signless man? thats my point.

. . . And your point still is - ??

Let me assure you: it is indeed easier to notice the sign of adultery on a pregnant woman than on a "signless" man, especially after Amina Lawal's case in northern Niegria came to light. Of course, there was no clamour for the stoning of the male culprit as it was "not easy to notice the sign" on the "signless man"!

belloti:
However, i noticed the new found vibe that you came here with to bastardise our discussions.

I chose not to reply earlier so as to afford you time to gather yourself together and think through that befuddled line of yours.

belloti:
you are very much welcome but i advice you tread carefully. We have had the likes of maliki, david, pataki and havila before you and we shall expect more new comers like you to bring in their haphazard knowledge of theology and blend it with the figments of their imaginations in maligning our already acrimoniuos debates here.

Wait a mo; is it the 'acrimonious debates' you thought i was maligning. . . or you meant something else but just didn't have the right punch to express it??

belloti:
However, the question is i feel christianity is wrong and i expect you to correct my apprehension.

We all have, but it seems some bolts and screws need adjusting to help your comprehension. In plain language: Christianity offered life to Muhammad; he lost it by denying what would have saved him - and he fell into the worst kind of idolatory ever imagined, as authenticated in Islamic history

They are still in "waiting" mode. . .

I think these have been addressed in measure in some other threads. . .

welborn's rejoinders at;
(Breaking News! - Judas Did Not Betray Jesus Afterall!)
. . .
(and this link as well!)
. . .
(Link for The Gospel of Thomas thread)

Havila:
@ Olabowale,

In conclusion Olabowale, may the Living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bless you, keep you and have mercies on you; may He bless your children and make their paths straight towards Him. May the power of the true God break all the hurts and pain of your past and make you see His Glory. Every wicked power having their hold on you will loose their grip. Your children will be great and successful. The devil will not make you miss your mark. These I pray for you and your children in the precious name of Jesus Christ, (and the people of Nairaland religion forum join me and say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, AMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Goodbye, sir.

Ammeeeeeeeeennnn!!

@Genial. . . heeheehee. . . you no go kill me!

In the light of the book of the topic:

1. She should beg him; then next -

2. She should grovel under him; then next -

3. She should nurse her bruises - after the blows (from the husband's fists!). . . afterall, *allah* knows best and is full of Mercy!

4. Then next, she should console herself by reciting Aisha's hadith-complaint:
". . .It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys." [Volume 1, Book 9, Number 498].

Beyond this, she should just continue to stay under such abuses. . . as the Qur'an says.

TayoD:
Ugwumba,
. . .
We are only following in the footstep of Christ my brother. We can't stand Him being misrepresented by idol worshippers and those who name His name but don't follow in His steps.

Well said, again.

The sad thing is that Mr-Holy-Book[b]s[/b]-with-an-"s" dribbles in to correct us of our "ways" - but he just doesn't get very far into his game of not applying the same political correctness to his Holy-Books-crew.

Ugwumba:
By responding after this, I enable you to spread your message of intolerance as the way of God. I WILL NOT HUMOUR YOU.

You already did, my dear. . . and we haven't stopped laughing. . . bbrruuuuaaahhhaaahhhaaa!!
Get the Bible - that's where you find holiness; not in some belief that pretends to dress up the Quraysh prophet in political cosmetics.

@mrptaki. . . I know, bro, I know. . . lol. Tee-he-hee!!
Let's just wait and see what's next when he shows up.

babs787:
1. why is the curse still there and hangs on every generation of Adam.gen 3v14-19.

1 Cor. 15:22 - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

babs787:
he came to die for the sin, why do we still have the curse not removed for the fact that he came to die for it?

Gal. 3:13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

Rom. 8:19-23
"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

babs787:
2. why did jesus not come immediately after Adam committed the sin and had to wait till many generations had passed away?

Gal. 4:4-5
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Heb. 11:40
"This was because God had something better in store for us. And He did not want them to reach the goal of their faith without us." (CEV)

babs787:
3.  for what purpose did he intend to delay the cru7cifiction till some thousand years after the event.

Same as answered for #2 above, but see also:
1 Tim 2:6 - "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. "

babs787:
4.  if jesus actually came to die for your sin , and that salvation lies in his blood sacrifice, why did he preached repentance in mathew 4v17

Jesus: "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." [Luke 13:3]

Heb. 9:22
"The Law says that almost everything must be sprinkled with blood, and no sins can be forgiven unless blood is offered."

Heb. 9:14
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

babs787:
5. if all person are under the stain of original sin, why are children exempted (they r also born of a woman as in job 25 v4) as in  mathew 18v3-6.

Deut. 1:39
"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."

Matt. 18:10 & 14
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. . . Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

babs787:
6. where did he say he came to die for sin in the bible?

Matt. 20:28
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Matt. 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Luke 24:46-47
"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

babs787:
7. u claimed jesus is God, must he punish himself before he can forgive sin?

Heb. 1:3
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"

1 Pet. 2:24
"Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

babs787:
8. the motive for any punishmewnt is to check evil and reform the sinner, without doubt, to punish someone for his past sins even after somone had died for that sin is a sign of vengeance and not justice!!

Read again I Pet. 2:24. Then the following:

Psa 89:14-16
"Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance. In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted."

Isa 53:5
"But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed."

babs787:
9.  if jesus can die for the sin of man, why did he plead to God in mathew 26v38-39.

He died for our sins, not His own because He had none. Further, His prayers were the climax of His earthly ministry, and that can't be taken to mean He could not die for the sin of man..

babs787:
10. if jesus came to die, why is he afraid of death in john 11v53: then from that day forth, they took counsel togetherr to put him to death. esus therefore walked no more in openly among the jews but wenjt unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called ephraim and there continued with his disciples.

The verse is 54 (not 53), and it does not teach that Jesus was afraid of death. Other verses show that He gave Himself willingly to death in view of the resurrection:

John 10:17 - "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again."

He was not afraid of death; for fear and love do not mix.

John 15:13 - "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

babs787:
11. if he had prepared to die for the sin of man, why was judas named traitor.

Because a traitor is one who pretends to have your best interest at heart but plots something sinister against you and your loved ones - and that is what Judas did. Nothing stopped Judas from repenting and receiving forgiveness - but his repentance was only after he was sure his plot did not work out.

babs787:
12. why do we accuse jew of handling him for what he came to do?

Acta 3:17-19
"And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord"

Rom. 11:1, 5, 11 & 23
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. . .Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. . .I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. . . And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again"

babs787:
these and many more when u finish with those above.

C'est fini.  

Babs787, you often accuse us of not answering your questions. I've obliged you your request by taking up every challenge, bit-by-bit. try not escaping through the backdoor when my bros come around to load theirs for your answers. gbade has captured it well:

gbade. x:
^ if he answers you, then don't come typing some stupid bullshit that TayoD didn't answer your questions as you have done in other threads.

Cheers.

babyosisi:
Who decides what's ill conduct anyway?

Babs787 does!  

First, he uses the example of the woman who refuses to cook; then disrespect comes into the picture; nevermind the concubines she refused to bring home. . . and then she can be lashed - with a pole ('lightly', remember?? - very "lightly". . . in just the way that Ali got up and gave that poor girl a violent beating! [Ishaq:496]).

And nobody has to decide when men become guilty of ill-conduct. . . afterall, Islam means "submisson" - of the kind that women can be treated as dogs.

davidylan:
go over the thread again you fountain of ignorance, your so-called question has been answered already!

Lol. . . at least he's no longer "waiting", and the discussion can move forward. Only problem is his inability to grasp points made. So, we'll just continue to decipher them and apply them to his level. . . maybe one day (who knows), he'll see the Light and understand.

babs787:
now, go over to the verse again, didnt u read it there that if you see your wife wilh ill conduct u first admonish them if she repent no problem but if she didnt, u refuse sharing bed with her.

i can see that u lack understanding, was beating lightly the first approach. i throw it at you again, if a wife disrespect her husband and she refuses to change, the husband continue loving her despite her unrepentant attitude.

@babs787,

It still says the same thing, nevermind your jokes. If you want to beat your wife in the hope that such a demeaning reaction pleases the *allah* of Muhammad, by all means do so.

What you have failed to see is that beating any woman does not promote her wellbeing, and it is barbaric. So, if you feel that your wife disrespects you, and you've exhausted your first few antidotes of correction. . . the next thing is to beat her, abi?? Well done - but it only shows you're a loser who does not understand the meaning of loving a woman as your wife! A wife is a woman - a human being, not a dog!!

A lesson about how to win the respct and love of a woman:

1. Love her by respecting her

2. Love her by understanding her

3. Love her by appreciating her values

4. Love her by celebrating her worth

5. Most of all, keep loving her

  . . .and no woman in her right mind will disrespect you for any of the above. So many women (and men) having issues have come back with "I'm sorry" when they discover that their spouses are not losers who advocate beating. Point made: love your wife and keep loving her. . . and you will reach her heart.

This is how to be a loser:

1. Do the opposite of all the 5 points above

2. Deny her the values of her womanhood by refusing to share her bed

3. When you've exhausted all and nothing changes - then celebrate you're the loser by beating her!

Babs787, let me ask you this: so what happens after you beat a woman and she doesn't repent??

@Bobbyaf,

Just so that you don't continue to miss the point, a few issues here:

Bobbyaf:
Does it make sense to you that Christ will judge His people after He delivers them?

Heb 10:30 - "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people."

Bobbyaf:
That day occured in 1844 based on bible prophecy. besides, when that statement was made the judgement wasn't yet started, so in a sense it was future, untill AD1844 arrived.

Try studying God's Word as it is, instead of posting what you've been taught by rote in SDA. So many of us know how the SDA spun the the theory of 1844 as the day of judgement.

William Miller (1782-1849), a former lay baptist minister spun this idea about Christ's Second Coming to occur in 1844. Miller's followers (Millerites) condemned all the churches of their day as apostate and Babylon, and warned Christians to come out of them. When Miller's prophecy failed, many were disappointed and left his Millerite Movement in what is now known as The Great Disappointment. The Millerite Movement morphed into the SDA when Ellen Harmon (later Ellen G. White) claimed that the date was correct, but that it rather referred to the start of an "Investigative Judgment."

In SDA theology, the Investigative Judgement began on October 22, 1844, when Christ entered upon the "judgment phase" of His ministry in order to blot out sin. The basis of this idea is Ellen G. White's claimed revelation that Christ entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not at His ascension, but in 1844, wherein He then began to investigate the records of human works (The Great Controversy, pp. 362-373).

Now, a few remarks:

1. If Christ didn't enter the holy of holies (or the Holy Place) before 1844, then Heb. 9:11-12 & 24 could not be true:

"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

2. If the judgement has started in 1844, then by inference the SDA (thanks to Ellen White's visions) is making out that Day to be other than is stated in the Bible:

Act 17:31 - "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

Rom 2:16 - "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

We are told that that day will be when the Lord Jesus Christ returns (I Cor. 4:5), and not the SDA date of 1844. See again II Tim. 4:1 = "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom."

3. Let us not forget that Miller's failed prophecy of 1844 was about one subject: the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. When the prophecy failed, Ellen G. White propped it up by saying the date was correct but it meant something else. Ever since, those who follow by rote this doctrine spun out of a failed prophecy simply keep missing the issue about "the Second Coming". Dates are still adjusted, excuses are being made for failed prophecies, . . . and in all of this, non-SDA 'denoms' are babylon!

God loves His children and does not rely on the idea of an exclusive remnant church to accept them. He does not reject them on the premise of their worshipping Him on any particular day or days. Faith in Jesus Christ saves and makes a true believer a member of the Body of Christ - and that Body is bigger than SDA.

@gist,

gists:
I stand to be corrected, my guess is that u brand him that title for his marriage with Aisha, the six year old girl . . . I don't see how Muhammed qualifies for that title!!! . . . The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) defines pedophilia in terms of . . .[b]behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children,

The fact that Muhammad married a child says it all - he qualified himself as a pedophile. Would you marry your 6 y.o. daughter (if you had one) to a man over 40?

gists:
Another thing u should have in mind is that he was legally married to her with the concent of both parent of the girl in question.

Muhammad violated the rights of the child by not seeking her consent. Later, when suitors came for his own daughter Fatima, the prophet played religious politics by settling matters on her own consent rather than on how he 'snatched' Aisha from her parents.

gists:
'If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever'

Muhammad didn't call anyone to worship him, for no one would worship a sinner - and Muhammad knew that himself (smart fellow)! But when you go through the Qur'an, you find that Islam is disguised polytheism calling the worship of innocent and sincere muslims to pagan gods (plural). I've highlighted several such texts in other threads.

gists:
Just 2 ask u a simple question, which group of people did Muhammed fight dt did not first raised sword against him?

The people that turned away from Islam. They never raised swords first against Muhammad; their crime was simply that they saw that he was not a prophet of the true God.

gists:
In mordern day language his actions will be seen as self defence.

Wrong, that would be murder. Killing innocent people for not believing in your religion is not "self defence" in modern day language when they didn't raise any swords or sticks.

gists:
Please don't let us start all over again on this thread as it will be off post.

Welcome anytime to open another.

gists:
In any case their are far many more attrocities in the bible. I think its better we don't dig

Yes, and it's the same Bible the *allah* of the Qur'an claims to have sent down, revealed, and confirmed! Tip: Christianity is not Judaism. If you want to repost claims that true Christians are as bloodthirsty as Muhammad, please adduce texts in the New Testament that enjoins Christians to kill in order to establish our Christianity. I don't find Jesus Christ exemplified by Muhammad's atrocities.

gists:
In your opinon Muhammed was a thriving womanizer!! Well at least he legally married all of his wife and no 300 concubines. He didn't need to scheme the death of any woman's husband just to sleep with her.

Muhammad's womanizing is authenticated Islamic history - women he seized with his right hand, which he called "booty," and whose husbands he killed.

gists:
[i]If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modem history with Muhammad?

Many in modern history fit the book: try Johnson, the founder of Ebony magazine - greatness of purpose; smallness of means, and astounding results. Others too numerous for now.

However, human genius does not guarantee salvation with God. Only faith in the Saviour Jesus Christ can ddo that for anyone.

gists:
his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold: the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not;

The dogma he came to "restore" was well being practised before him by his own people; and that dogma was polytheism. Only difference was that Muhammad refined his own. However, this "restoration" did not annul the polytheistic elements in the Qur'an that clearly reveal that their are many "creators" and "gods" in Islam.

gists:
the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words.

We know that already - only need to add that he sustained both still with the sword.

gists:
Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?
- Lamartine

Lamartine will find out at Christ's return. With all the great titles he accorded Muhammad, one wonders why such a "great" man trembled at the prospect of dying, and indeed was unsure what his *allah* would do to him in that day.

@babs787,

It is derogatory and inhumane to treat a woman less than being human. Christians can continue to love their wives; and what demonstrates that love is not beating them (regardless of the perceived ill-conduct), but treating them with the respect they deserve as human beings. Beating a woman whom you married as your wife is treating her like a dog; and I'm not surprised this idea of treating women like dogs is officially in the annals of Islamic history:

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 493:
'Narrated 'Aisha:
The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet."'

If a woman is perceived as ill-conducted, it would be an honour for the man to maintain his dignity by respecting her as a woman - a human being in exactly the way he perceives himself. Only losers beat their wives. Even Aisha, the wife of Muhammad didn't like that derogation:

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 498:
"Narrated 'Aisha: It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys."

What happens when you beat your wife lightly and she still maintains her position?

@Bobbyaf,

Your rejoinders don't come as a surprise; and in a roundabout way, you've only managed to divulge my suspicion of what you've been taught by rote - that the SDA is the remnant church.

Bobbyaf:
That doesn't make sense whatsoever. God has His remnant church that has preserved His truth. I belieev its the SDA church, and you don't. Prove it

That says it all, and there's no need to prove anything. What that tells me is that the SDA assumes the legalistic role of arrogating to herself the title of a "remnant church" while seeing other christian churches as "babylon". So, all your efforts were geared towards the sole aim of trying to preach the SDA, and not the Bible.

Bobbyaf:
You can't put words in my mouth Shahan. I keep saying if you happen to read my post, and you do not understand a point I have made, then ask me to expand on it.

You just did - and you're still inconsistent. It doesn't take away from the legalism you've been bantering along.

Bobbyaf:
I exlained to you before that obviously the denom to which I belong would not have been regarded by me as one of those "professed churches" by virtue of my being apart of it. . .You keep trying to give the impression that such an expression on my part is legalistic because I am being exclusive.

Point made. The SDA church is one of those "professed churches" - and therefore falls into the broad category of "babylon" as you termed other churches. Your being exclusive is no wories to me; it simply highlights the legalism.

Bobbyaf:
There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings.

shahan link=topic=34371.msg803615#msg803615 date=1168289997:
. . . And only the SDA is the true church, abi??

Bobbyaf:
Well, in terms of biblical teachings only.

Point made, again. How do your responses differ from what I've been pointing out all along - that you class all other denominations as "professed christian churches" which are "lumped under the general term babylon." This is the very idea that I'd wanted you to reconsider, because by drivelling about that, you make yourself one of those babylonian churches; albeit, in a roundabout way you try to exonerate the SDA from the pack of your broad labelling.

Bobbyaf:
You can either agree with me or not, but don't make me look bad because I express the notion. Don't label me as a legalist, because I am not.

At the risk of repetition, I didn't make you look bad - you just keep doing that to yourself.

You really don't know what you're doing to yourself, Bobbyaf. There are Christians in other churches, and even on Nairaland - and God's love for them is not any less simply because they are non-SDA. If you go through the inputs of other Christians, you'd see they weren't trying to justify the idea that the true church is as narrow as only one denomination based on exclusive doctrinal issues. Let me partly quote just one of such inputs:

Havila:
But do not miss the purpose of this post; let us focus on the product of God's grace; Salvation by faith in the sacrificial death, burial, ressurection, glorification and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord is what defines the True Church of God. One Fold, One Sheperd. There is One Church, the body of Christ; and Jesus Christ is the Head!!

Did you catch that about what defines the True Church of God? When Havila states that "There is One Church, the body of Christ", I'm sure he didn't try to define the SDA. Your problem is that everyone outside the SDA 'denom' is not in the true church; and that, my dear, is classic legalism as highlighted by your pun on being "exclusive."

I believe that when the Bible speaks of the Body of Christ, it does not point to just one denomination, much less the SDA. God's children are loved and accepted by Him in Christ, not by the badge of membership they wear as belonging to an exclusive 'denom'.

davidylan:
The devil keeps christians in check by decieving them that to be "good christians" is to desist from condemning false prophets and religions!

I couldn't have said it better! Good lad!

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
~~ Eph 5:11

I'm not surprised

Just a postscript to show you why Muhammad is not a true prophet:

Ugwumba:
Those who speak of the Holiness of God and preach love, forgiveness and tolerance of each and everyone, are these not truly the Blessed of the Father, and should they not be called His prophets?

First, I want you to know that Muhammad doesn't know God as "the Father." Please carefully go through the Qur'an your friend gave you and post just one verse where Muhammad spoke of God as "Father." Infact, several times he categorically denied that God was the Father.

What does that say to us as Christians who read the Bible? It is alright to speak of Jesus in Islam; but not when you refer to Him as the Son of God. It is this very confession that tests whether or not people receive Jesus Christ by also acknowledging "the Father". Here:

                                   "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."

                                                - John 5:43 -

The consequencies of rejecting Jesus Christ because He came in His Father's name is to deny that Jesus is the Son of God! Jesus never for one moment gave the idea that it is alright to believe in Him without believing at the same time in the Father. So, if He came in the Father's name and people hate Christians talking about "the Son of God", then this is what Jesus says:

                      "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." -- Joh 15:23.

Muhammad hated the confession of Jesus as the Son of God; and it is up to us not to be glib today about this. That's why we are here.

Lol. . . just because I post what the Qur'an and Hadith say, I have become a hater?? Sorry if it makes you wonder. At least, it is Islam I hate, not muslims themselves. If you love someone, you would warn them of the danger that they are largely aware of. . . lovingly, of course: and I trust that's what I've been doing.

Let me assure you this: indeed I've read all those and more; but that doesn't get into my head as if I'm more intelligent than anyone on Nairaland. Not at all. If you fail to catch my drift and on that account feel I'm not born again, it's really not up to you to decide the matter at the end of the day - it matters what God Himself says.

Cheers.

I have read 5 English translations of the Qur'an, read quite some volumes of the Hadith, studied the various denominations in Islam (over 70 of them), and read quite a library of books authored by Muslims themselves. For real.

I am also a Christian who has read the Bible at least 9 times since my being saved, and have a variety of study materials in my personal library at home - from concordances, dictionaries, encyclopedia, various versions of the Bible, to Greek and Hebrew study tools.

If you'd like me to, it's no bother to post what you're missing about Muhammad. In the meanwhile, please look at the previous ones in against my username and see if what things I wrote are largely out of sorts with what the Qur'an teaches.

If you can prove that all the things you highlighted apply to Muhammad, point made. But that those things do not apply is why we are here. The reason why we are enjoined to expose false prophets is so we do not fall for them and hurt our eternal future.

Backslider:
They will dwell on other things I am happy that they read the scriptures and this is why some Muslims are converting

Aye. . . some of the Muslims I know who have converted read their own Qur'an again before seeing the Light - Jesus Christ.

Bobbyaf:
That is why John the prophet made a call for all of God's people, whereever they are, to come out of babylon to be where they aught to have been from day one.

Where is that place where they ought to be?

Bobbyaf:
There can only be one true body of believers which has to realistically manifest itself on earth as a denomination.

And that denomination is none other than the SDA??

Bobbyaf:
Listen to John as he speaks about what will happen to God's last-day church:

And that last-day church is which church/denomination - the SDA?

Bobbyaf:
Now that there remains a remnant of God's people who are still preserving bible truth, Satan is still angry with this remnant who can be identified as those "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"

And this describes none other than the SDA?

Bobbyaf:
Now the "he" in the beginning of verse 15 is the US with its eventual union of church and state, that will eventually influence the rest of the world to accept Sunday Observance as the only way to bring about world peace.

If you only look up and see the reality on the ground: the US and the rest of the world are not clamouring for Sunday Observance! If you can hear the chorus: they want every expression of Christianity obliterated! The weakness in your interpretation is simply the undue emphasis you place on Sunday observance/worship.

Bobbyaf:
Because God's true believers will resist this move, they will be seen as the only ones holding up world unity under Rome's false Sunday sabbath. All attempts will be made to pressure us into accepting world unity, under papal Rome's influence.

"To pressure us. . ." - us as in the SDA, no?

Bobbyaf:
@ Shahan
You might not be technically a Catholic, but if your organization follows her dictates then you sure are influenced by her. By holding to her Sunday-observance pagan practice, an institution that was designed to counterfeit bible truth, you are an accomplice to erroneous doctrines.

Thanks for prejudging again. This time, it was only mild. One thing I will guarantee you is this: Saturday worship will not guarantee anyone salvation. The rituals of emphasizing a particular day of worship as the basis for judging the correctness of people's relationship with God is untenable in God's Word. If you've forgotten, here's a reminder:

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

If Paul was afraid of people like you, so am I.

Bobbyaf:
On the other hand I am not necessarily using those remarks to judge you per se, but only a reminder that you need to take note, especially as we are in God's judgement hour.

Thanks for already prejudging and coming back with the pretense that you're not doing so per se. I've had good laughs today, and that's just one more - thanks.

Further, I'm not one of those bantering the idea that we are in God's judgement hour. Judgement is yet future when Christ comes back - [II Cor. 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad"].

God has appointed a particular Day when He shall judge all things by Jesus Christ. If you are facing judgement already, good for you. My confidence remains firm as the Word says - it is yet a future event when Christ returns.

Bobbyaf:
Secondly, all I am asking of my dear friends on nairlander is to study God's words. I am not asking you to come to my denomination, for coming sake. The bible will take you where you need to be. The bible and Spirit of God will do the leading.

Many have been led by the Spirit of God to find true worship where they are - outside the SDA.

How did you know they are the same?

Donzman. . . she's serious. Confess kia-kia!!

babyosisi:
I resist you in Jesus name

Nne, seconded o jare!!

mukina2:
@shaitan . .i am the only girl so my Papa would never do that

I'm so proud of you, my dear. If you fancy any good chap with clean-shave, eductaed enough not to read matters beyond what he has been told, not such a loser as to advocate beating you (whether viloently or lightly. . .for your own good), but respects you, and truly understands how to treat a woman instead of regarding her as "property". . . by all means, go ahead. We are right behind you! Enjoy!  

PS. . . the typos were deliberate. . . just so that you catch my drift!