@babs787,

babs787:

Escapist

Not new - another one of your cheap celebration and under-achievement clichés.

babs787:

Question 1
Since Jesus came to die on the cross, it means that he is very aware of the contract. If so, why was Judas named a traitor for the fact it has been arranged that he would die?[/b]

The message I have been trying to pass across to you is that, “Do you have to hold Judas responsible”?

Don't dribble round it - you were being dishonest and not passing a message. What you said about "contract" was neither in the Bible nor in the Qur'an.

babs787:

Hey, So judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Please read the below verse

John 18v4-8: jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth and said unto them, “whom ye seek”?. They answered him Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, “I am he” and Judas which betrayed him stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, “ I am he”, they went backward and fell to the ground. They asked he them again, “ whom seek ye”? and they said, “jesus of Nazareth”. Jesus answered, “ I have told you that I am he, if ye therefore seek me, let these go their way

You said Judas kissed Jesus but John said Jesus showed himself. Which do we take (showing that none was an eye witness)

The disciples were there and saw Judas kiss Jesus as a sign of betrayal. Your linear thinking prevents you from seeing that.

babs787:

Here you also said he hanged himself. Please read
Act 1v18: Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness) and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Also note 'And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple” contradicting “Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness”

First, that he hanged himself does not contradict the fact that he fell headlong in his suicide attempt and burst open in the midst of his bowels.

Again, your linear thinking at work. This is what happened (Matt.27:5- ~~ "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day."

In Jewish custom, the buying of a field with "the price of blood" is for burying strangers. When the field is purchased, the name of the stranger is put on the receipt - and that was why in typical Jewish expression it is recorded in Acts 1:18 >> "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity," showing that the iniquity of betrayal was his own handiwork.

babs787:

Very good. But note that Jesus prayed alone i.e., the disciples never prayed with him. The prayer could have been offered in the upper room, hope u know that.

Why don't you simply drop your fabrications? You're trying to force issues into texts where they don't exists.

babs787:

Nothing was denied madam
This my response.
He didnt take them further into the Garden to pray (he prayed alone) but in order to make his inner line of defence.Little wonder he told them to "wait and watch".
The manner in which Jesus deployed his disciples - Eight at the gate and three making the inner line of defence shows that Jesus was not prepared to be made a scapegoat for his followers. He had prepared to fight to the bitter end.

You asked a question, and you denied its implications in your reply. Go figure.

babs787:

“watch and pray”.
Watch and at the same time be praying? Will there be concentration? Mind you, the disciples never prayed, jesus alone prayed. If for prayer sake, he need not go with the three further into the garden, leaving others behind. Does that mean the three were prayer warriors? Ponder on those please.

Let me help you again. First, you misquoted the Bible in saying "wait and watch" - it was never so written, and that was your fabrication in order to prove your "Jihad".

Again, to "watch and pray" is a familiar Biblical expression as "fasting and prayer". Besides, I have given you Scriptures in the Bible to show that to "watch and pray" does not mean what you're suggesting; - and yes, when they go together, even in the midst of danger and anxiety, the one doing the prayer can be in full concentration.

babs787:

Thank you ma. Could you please help with an answer.
What did he pray for?

Have you read John 17? Please do.

babs787:

The angel came to strengthen him about the crucifixion. hmmmmmmmm

Yep - go read it again.

Cheers.

@mrpataki,

I don see your vision and will get back to you as soon as the PC is released once again!

Lol @mrpataki,

I was off for a while because my friend wanted to use the PC.

I do hope babs understands the meaning of "intellectual", let alone a "discourse". The one thing I want him to settle first is the basis for his fabrications, as most of them are found neither in the Bible nor the Qur'an. Failing that for the time being, I have said he simply does not exist.

@mukina2,

mukina2:

shaitan has per your question .its imply because women expereince things that make them unclean from time to time . .ie .mensturation and so on . .

I don't think that a woman's menstruation has got anything to do with preventing her from participating in the mosque - and it is common knowledge that women generally are not permitted to take active roles in Muslim gatherings.

On the one hand, your answer intimates that women are indeed not allowed active roles in mosques - because they experience "things that make them unclean from time to time". Then on the other hand, you contradicted this by saying that "women do take part in activities in the mosque." Is there something missing in your reply?

mukina2:

women do take part in activities in the mosque .they preach .and recite verses from the Quran .ii use to do that too .especailly when their was an occation at the mosque like during ramadan also .there are lectures throughout

Jokes aside, could you please name how many mosques in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon women actually preach in mosques?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong on anything; but in this Islamic Talk thread, it would be helpful to enunciate issues so that the reader doesn't come away with mere claims.

Lol @bindex,

Abeg leave my sis alone. She will never strap bombs to her body or talk about that here.

Backslider:

Dear Brothers and Sisters.

If I were Pastor Chris or his Friend i would do 2 things

1) Return the money with Interest
2) preach very strong messages against this Evil act of stealing and giving to the Church.
. . .
In Jesus Name

Amen

C'est fini!

@blabs787,

babs787:


The Christians altered their books. Read the second verse too

Quran 5v41 "O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, 'If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!' If any one's trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such - it is not God's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment."

This is hilarious. You try to prove that "Christians altered their books" simply because Muhammad claimed it so in the Qur'an - without evidence?? Maybe you urgently need to address these questions borrowed again from 4get_me:

For those accusing the Bible of having been corrupted (according to the Qur'an), I have a few questions:

#1. what did the original Bible say in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 before Muhammad was born?

#2. who exactly "corrupted" the verses in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 according to Muhammad's accusation?

#3. In what year exactly were John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 'corrupted' as accused by Muhammad against the Bible?

#4. What "Psalms" did Muhammad refer to when he stated in the Qur'an that Allah gave the Psalms unto David [Sura 4:163 - ". . and to David We gave the Psalms."]? What exactly did the Psalms say, and how many chapters were they?

#5. Why did Muhammad not mention Isaiah in the Qur'an as one of the prophets of God, even though the Jews recognized him as such, and Jesus quoted from the same Isaiah?

If Muslims have investigated Muhammad's accusations and found them untenable, would they be willing to admit that Muhammad was not telling the truth?

@oga babs787,

babs787:

Hold on for babs. He is sorting out your response and will soon be back.

Could I add those part of your slogans?

babs787:

haba, ignored ke, no not yet, we are still on the issue of crucifixion.
Which of your questions have I evaded?

I haven't even started offering your questions of my own as yet - just the easy ones borrowed from 4get_me. And when I find you mature enough for an educated and fabrication-free debate, then you'll find me giving you any notice. Please don't come back with "ITs NEVER my turn" or any of those weathered clichés.

Regards.

@mukina,

mukina2:

@mrpataki
when i first started learning the Quran when i was very akid of about 8 .i was always included in all religious talks
even when i got to 13 . when i fdinished the Quran i was invloved in all activities .from recitation to reading duahs for the sick whenever we visited them and yeah i am female

If you were involved in all activities as a female, why is it that most Muslims do not allow a muslimah (muslim woman) any activity in the mosque?

@Amby,

Amby:

Shahan, the issue about Mary, the Mother of God, has nothing to do with logic. It's scriptural if one is willing to deduce facts from the words of the scripture and as well be atuned to the Holy Spirit for a proper guide and understanding.

Precisely my point - please give me the one verse that refers to Mary as the Mother of God. As far as this discussion goes, you haven't given one verse for this belief, and any other you quote has been used to arrive at your logic to insert what is not there.

Amby:

If you have gone through the entire thread, you will recall portion I cited where Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit said in a loud voice, "You are the most blessed of all women, and blessed is the child you will bear! Why should this great thing happen to me, that my Lord's mother comes to visit me? (Lk 1:41-43).
I have asked severally from those who do not see her (Mary) as the mother of God, (because, according to them, "the scripture did not say so" to give clear difference between Lord and God in the hope that they will open their spiritual eyes to the words of the scripture and deduce for themselves the fact that she (Mary) is indeed the mother of God as she was addressed by Elizabeth.

Why then have you been silent to the rejoinders stating the difference and still pushing this logic? At least, a few people clearly delineated the implications and asked you questions - you were completely silent on them; and yet you're begging for answers to what you haven't been able to answer.

Amby:

I will now refer you to the numerous portions of the Bible where Lord is referred to as God.
Poor and humble people will once again find the happiness which the Lord, the Holy God of Israel, gives (Isaiah 29:19).
Isaiah 29:22 - So now the Lord, the God of Israel,
Isaiah 30:15 - The Sovereign Lord, the holy God of Israel,
Now go to the following Bible portions;
Isaiah 36:7; Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 3:22,23; Ezekiel 20:33; Daniel 9:10,14,15 ; Hosea 12:9; Joel 1:14; Amos 6:14; Jonah 1:9; Micah 7:7; Nahum 1:2; Habakkuk 1:12; Zephaniah 3:17; Haggai 1 :12; Zechariah 6:15; Malachi 2:16. I believe the above portions will clear every misconception concerning Lord and God.

And how does this bring about Mary as the Mother of God? Or, let me ask it this way:

By the same inference, is it okay to call Mary the ~~

mother of God Almighty? (Gen. 48:3 & Ruth 1:21)

mother of the Most High God? (Gen. 14:18 & 22)

mother of Jehovah? (Exo. 6:3)

Amby:

For your other questions, i refer you to Malachi 3:5 (The Lord Almighty says, "I will apear among you to judge and I will testify at once against adulterers, against those who give false testimony, those who cheat employee out of their wages, and those who take advantage of widows, orphans and foreigners - against all who do not respect me".

Jesus came to show us the way to salvation. Even though He came in human form, He did not loose His divinity. he shed His blood to wash away our sins and resurrected to show us that even if we die in Him we shall live. He is the way to salvation; He is the truth we seek and He is the life everlasting we all desire.

And how does that answer my questions? Please refer again and provide straight forward answers.

Cheers.

Quoting the Bible in Islam Talk, no worries.

Meanwhile, where is the Qur'anic verse for your own persuasion? Was there none so that you had to quote the Bible?

@nuru,

nuru:

This could only have been because of Islamic life entrenched in that society.

And what religious life has been entrenched in Pakistan, Afghanistan and several other places other than Islamic life?

nuru:

I also want to tell you that my wife just returned from Saudi Arabia and to her it was like she wanted to stay put there if not for family and work commitments. That is why when people talk of backwardness and all its attribute, I say these are not the lot of Muslims. Where there is a war, yes, visibility and feasibility of progress is reduced, but to generalize is not it.

Probably your wife didn't stay long enough to know religious life in Saudi Arabia (no disrespects to her).

nuru:

The dignity that Islam accords women is unparalleled in history and that is why female issues have always been subjects of discussion since the time of Quranic Revelation.

Classic. Have you wondered why female issues have always been subjects of discussion centered on the Qur'an? In the face of the propaganda that you cough up (as in the case of the consent to commit coitus interruptus), questions are being asked, and so far only claims are being made to pretend that such issues don't exist.

@blabs787,

babs787:

Madam, don't rush please. Its never my turn. We have not concluded the issue at hand. You are telling me that he was and I am saying he wasnt. You can bet it with me that your listed worries will be attended to one after the other but that will be when the topic at hand is laid to rest.

If only you could hear the laughter you're causing already by your cheap defence - "Its NEVER my turn!" O kare arúgbó! You have made it your genetic priority to always throw questions at others in a rush, complain that they are being "IGNORED", and now dodge through the back door with "Its NEVER my turn!"

I have said it before: you have nothing to offer. Now you can be happy to celebrate your cheap local defence and take some news back to those who sent you. Whenever they make it YOUR turn to answer questions, then we shall take notice of you. For now, you simply don't exist.

Tara!

@blabs787,

Your fabrications again are proving your immaturity. The latest reposting of your recycled theories all have answers in the Bible; but for some inglorious reason you choose to ignore them, reharsh new stories not found in the Qur'an, Hadith or the Bible, and then you sit back to applaud your under-achievements.

babs787:

These are the other questions thrown at babyosis when she demanded for evidence. From here, I move on and will make each question a heading for my coming post

1. why did mary go to the tomb?

Mary went to the tomb for the express reason stated in the Bible ~~ "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him" (Mark 16:1).

babs787:

2. why was the stone removed and why were the winding sheets found unwind?

Answers again in the Bible ~~

"And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt. 28:2).

"And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great" (Mark 16:4).

The linen clothes and napkin showed that Jesus was actually crucified and buried: "And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre" (Mark 15:46). Napkins were traditionally used for wrapping the face of the dead - as in John 11:44 about Lazarus ("his face was bound about with a napkin".

When the women came to the sepulchre and found "the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself" (John 20:7), that was proof that the Lord Jesus Christ had risen from the dead - as the angels told them ("Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen ~~ Luke 24:5-6). The folded napkin was testimony that there was no raid of the tomb; no sacrilege was committed to steal the body of Jesus away.

If Jesus was not crucified, why would the women have gone to the sepulcre intending to anoint the Body of Jesus - the fact of which they witnessed with their very eyes as in John 19:25?? "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." How would they have presumably gone to the sepulchre if Jesus was never crucified?

You chaps are desperately cooking up silly antics to deny clear statements of the Bible, just because Muhammad just decided to cook up his own gist for the same denial. So far, your fabrications haven't helped you a shade better.

babs787:

3. why did mary think jesus as a gardener? do resurrected bodies look like gardeners?

Jesus looked like a gardener because after His resurrection he often appeared to His disciples in ways they could not immediately recognize Him, until after He revealed Himself to them ~~ "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country" (Mark 16:12).

After showing Himself to them in these ways initially, they He upbraided their unbelief ~~ "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen" (Mark 16:14).

babs787:

4. what does mary wanted to do with a decomposing body?

Answer as above - to anoint the Body of Jesus (mark 16:1).

babs787:

5. can she alone carry a dead body?

That does not disprove the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There were several who went to the sepulchre - not just Mary (Mark 16:1).

@babs787,

Now your turn to answer some questions which I'll borrow from 4get_me for now:

For those accusing the Bible of having been corrupted (according to the Qur'an), I have a few questions:

#1. what did the original Bible say in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 before Muhammad was born?

#2. who exactly "corrupted" the verses in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 according to Muhammad's accusation?

#3. In what year exactly were John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 'corrupted' as accused by Muhammad against the Bible?

#4. What "Psalms" did Muhammad refer to when he stated in the Qur'an that Allah gave the Psalms unto David [Sura 4:163 - ". . and to David We gave the Psalms."]? What exactly did the Psalms say, and how many chapters were they?

#5. Why did Muhammad not mention Isaiah in the Qur'an as one of the prophets of God, even though the Jews recognized him as such, and Jesus quoted from the same Isaiah?

If Muslims have investigated Muhammad's accusations and found them untenable, would they be willing to admit that Muhammad was not telling the truth?

@blabs787,

babs787:

Question 3

a. why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray?
b. Could they not have prayed in the upper room?
c. Why did he go with his disciples to pray when only him can do the prayer afterall they didn’t pray with him but watched.

They went to the Garden so that they might be in a better position to defend themselves.

Wrong again - neither the Bible nor the Qur'an hints such, and it is only your own devising. Jesus and His disciples went to Gethsemane to pray because that was where they often resorted - "And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples" (John 18:2). It was their favorite place, and they went there to pray on that occasion.

babs787:

Question 4
Why did he take Peter, john and james further into the garden?

He didnt take them further into the Garden to pray (he prayed alone)

You asked a question, then you deny your own question in the same breath. Clap for yourself.

babs787:

but in order to make his inner line of defence.Little wonder he told them to "wait and watch".

He did not tell them to "wait and watch" - again your fabrication. he simply told them to "watch and pray" (Matt. 26:41).

babs787:

The manner in which Jesus deployed his disciples - Eight at the gate and three making the inner line of defence shows that Jesus was not prepared to be made a scapegoat for his followers. He had prepared to fight to the bitter end.

Fabrication is not helping you - so try another one of your 787 blabbings. Again, neither the Qur'an nor the Bible teaches that Jesus was prepared to fight to the end. I already quoted John 18:36 to show that Jesus never was willing to engaged in a "Jihad" to the bitter end.

babs787:

Question 5

a. Why did he pray to the extent of sweating blood.
b. what was the prayer for since he came to die.

He prayed to God in order to be saved. Jesus prayed for the jews because of their sense of logic that if they succeeded in their attempt on his life, it would be a sure proof for them and for their children till eternity that Jesus was a liar. Their rejection of him would leave the door open for every would be imposter to the claim of being the Promised Messiah of the Jews.

And how have you answered your own question? What about the "sweating blood"? Again, you can read John 17 to see the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane. Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an teaches your fabrication about Jesus praying for "the jews because of their sense of logic!"

babs787:

Question 6

a. What did the angel of God came to strengthen him for?
b. Did he come to increase his doubts or fear?
c. To multiply his anxieties
d. Did the angel come to tell him that God had forsaken him in his disbelief?

The angel of God came to assure him that God was with him and that He would never leave him to be killed.

Already answered - see above. Nowhere did the Bible nor the Qur'an teach your fabrication in order to prove God "would never leave him to be killed". You're simply putting words in the Angel's mouth in order to buttress your desperate eristic claims.

babs787:

I even told you that if you do not provide answers to the questions listed above, I will still move ahead.

We've heard the tales before. Please move on to the next line of your 787 fabrications and blabbings.

@blabs787,

babs787:

@babyosis & shahan,
I thought babaearly has told you to shut his mouth.Go on and do that.

After celebrating your local under-achievements, you still haven't been able to state if you were seeking an educated debate.

babs787:

Babyosis, why pretending? The questions are just the starting ones to buttress my claim. Like I said, you don't have the answers and will never have.

That is what cheap noise-makers conclude, because they have some overblown hope that replies should not be made to their "ignorant" questions.

babs787:

Also, the questions will never make sense to both of you because you never expected the questions.

Another cheap noise making.

babs787:

Throughout your years of being brainwashed or programmed, you have never come across these type of questions let alone someone asking you to defend the crucifixion stuff.

Another cheap celebration of your ignorance.

babs787:

You babyosis asked me to give you reasons and I gave you part of the reasons, yet you still come here and be saying stupid things that they are not intelligent questions.

And yours are "intelligent" - so that anyone reading your inputs comes away asking you to understand yourself?

babs787:

Are you not the same person that has been telling me to give you the evidence? When I listed them out for you, you resorted to your normal slogan.

Are you tired out of your usual slogans - "I'm waiting". . . "escapist". . ."I'm too much". . ."they are ignoring my questions"??

babs787:

I said it. Both of you have never been challenged let alone asking you questions. Read her post above, she was asking me what praying fervently got to do with being crucified.

Instead of drumming your ignorance, why this the long drama to a simple question?

babs787:

If you don't know it has lot to do. Let me break it down for you.
Jesus never had any heavenly contract with God let alone being killed on the cross.

So says your Qur'an, abi? If you knew Jesus never had any "contract" with God, why pose the silly question in the first place? You now come round applauding your ignorance twice over. Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an states a "contract" about the Crucifixion - and you throw words around without the slightest clue to your celebrated illiteracy.

babs787:

Let me be brief here in order to answer the questions you have not been able to.

When you have nothing else to say, this cliche has become weathered.

babs787:

Jesus wanted his disciples to watch (in case of jewish intruder) and went to pray alone. Jesus prayed to God to save him from the Jews and it was learnt that God heard his prayer, sending Angel to strenghten him that God would never leave him. The above shows that HE DIDNT DIE ON THE CROSS.

Pity. . . if only you replay your drama and seek to truly understand yourself. The meaning of "watch" in that context is often in connection with prayer - just like the Bible in many instances connects "fasting" with prayer. "Watch" in that instance simply means to be spiritually alert - not against any Jewish intruder, but simply that they might not become spiritually weak in the hour of trial they would face shortly. Jesus Himself gave the reason why He asked them to watch - "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matt. 26:41). So, you can see it was not for any Jewish intruder as you inferred.

God sending an Angel to strengthen Jesus does not prove that "HE DIDNT DIE ON THE CROSS!" Rather, the strengthening was towards the great work He was to face on the Cross! If to "strengthen" means He did not die, then the Angel would probably have taken Him away from the Garden. However, it further establishes that Jesus went on to the Cross to die for the sins of the world.

babs787:

Since both of you tactically avoided my questions just because you have no answers, I will answer the questions for you

Read the above - are you the wiser now?

babs787:

Question 1
Since Jesus came to die on the cross, it means that he is very aware of the contract. If so, why was Judas named a traitor for the fact it has been arranged that he would die?

Judas was named a traitor because jesus was unaware of heavenly contract, i.e. he never planned to come and die for you.

The Bible and the Qur'an did not call it a "contract", so your eristic claim here is a mute point.

Judas was called a traitor for reasons given in the Bible itself - for a price, he betrayed the Lord Jesus with a kiss in such malicious pretence as if he had done nothing wrong:

Matt. 26:15 ~~ 'And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.'

Mark 14:44 ~~ 'And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.'

Luke 22:48 ~~ 'But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?'

This event was long prophesied and was fulfilled to the letter:

Zech. 11:13 ~~ 'And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.'

Matt. 27:5 ~~ 'And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.'

babs787:

Question 2
Why did he charge them to buy sword. Did I hear someone saying that one of his disciples that raised sword against the Romans was rebuked? Well, am still coming to that but the question now, why did he charge them to buy sword?

Jesus under-rated the Jew. After learning that Judas had betrayed him and that they would come for him, he charged them to buy sword for defence (Jihad)

Typical Muhammedan thinking - everything with a sharp edge is "Jihad". Again, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an hinted that "Jesus under-rated the Jew", and making that inference is a cheap concoction. Besides, to show that Jesus never meant a "Jihad" at all, this was what He said:

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52).

'Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' (John 18:36).

The Bible did not once hint that Jesus wanted to "defend" Himself, and there's not a hint either about that in the Qur'an. On the contrary, the Bible shows that He was willing to give Himself over to maddening crowd led by Judas that came for His arrest:

Matt. 26:53 - 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?'

John 18:7-8 ~~ 'Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.'

Why then did Jesus Ask Them to Buy A Sword - Luke 22:36?

When you read the context and understand that the Lord Jesus sometimes used parabolic language in revealing truth to His disciples, then you see He wasn't asking them to literarily posssess swords. He had previously asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.' (vs.35). How could anyone imagine that the Lord who sustained them at first was unable to do so in their future? A careful study will reveals that vs.36 was simply parabolic: 'Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.'

The reason why this is parabolic is because previously in His teaching, He had revealed to them the power of faith in God's provision, Who guarantees their sustenance - food, clothes, protection, and other resources for their needs (Luke 12:28-30): 'If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.'

The lesson He had always wanted them to take to heart was Luke 12:26 ~ 'If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?' And by that, affirming that their welfare was well-guaranteed by God.

However, because the disciples were often slow to understand what He actually had taught them (see Mark 8:17-18), He spoke parabolically in Luke 22:36 as He often did when people are slow to grasp what God says. This is also the construct found in Rev.22:11 (He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still). There, He was not encouraging that people be unjust and/or filthy; rather, it is a parabolic language running throughout the Bible to speak to people who are set in their ways after much warning for them to change for the better.

The fact that Jesus was not instructing them to possess swords literarily is clearly enunciated in John 18:36 already quoted above; and to demonstrate what kind of faith He wanted them to have in God's power to provide for, and protect them, He stated right there in the midst of peril: 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?' Matt. 26:53.

@nuru,

nuru:

Yet no mention of rape in this article. The right to possession of slave maids ( whom your right hand possess) is even compared to marriage by the writer to show you the honour with which conjugal relationship is held among Muslims.

Neither was there any consent mentioned anywhere of Muhammad's companions before they committed coitus interruptus with their victims.

When a person has sex with a war victim against their will simply because "your right hand possesses" them, what is that called?

nuru:

And who told anybody that the Muslim women of today are not happy with the dictates of their religion. I have a wife, sisters and colleagues that are always thanking Allah for making them Muslims. They are enjoying themselves and even when they travel to the western world where the so called liberated women have field days, they still come back to thank Allah for their own lot.

Would your wife, sisters and colleagues still thank Allah for making them Muslims if they travelled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Just try and be realistic for once.

And travelling to "the western world" does not make Islam right in anyway - that is the propaganda your mullahs have been spreading for ages.

nuru:

Why wouldn't somebody listen to the Quran and its expositions. Why wouldn't somebody perform Salat, pay Zakat, fast, perform the Hajj and spread goodness and love on the surface of the earth. Why must somebody spread lies, fornication, corruption, gambling, intoxications, lewdness, aggression, tyranny, pride and other vices on the surface of the earth.

The emboldened part of your complaint are the questions that many people are asking about the issues in Islam. In typical Muslim societies epitomised by Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, most of the vices you mentioned are the norm; not to mention that some Muslim apologists on the Forum have used lies and pride to try and further their claims.

You get am tomorrow.

@babyosisi,

It is really not a big deal to understand that the guy's only agenda is to NOT make sense at all. That is why his every effort is testimony to the fact, and if you want to bring him round to a mature discourse, he celebrates his ignorance with "I am too much!" or, "You're escapist!"

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:

I want to talk, but I know there are those who are ready to devour my inputs here immediately.

@ Shahan,
Do you think I am running away? I am actually lurking around. I am even nearer than it first appeared
Send you my mail tomorrow. Got some words of encouragement for you!

I knew you ran for cover before I came down from the mountain. Did you fear Elisha. . . or was it Gehazi? Anyhow, the rain will not overtake you; so no cause for alarm. 

@goodguy,

goodguy:

pataki, you're free to talk okay? No one will devour your inputs, this is not a religious thread.

And who says you can't be devoured? What have we been climbing the mountain all these time for??
Ohhh! On hindsight, you're right!! No one will devour our inputs (depends on what you guys are putting where)!! _{Am I now becoming a rascal?? Na una cause am!}

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:

This is even more complicated than I thought.

The scriptures says seek and you shall find.
I've been seeking and you guys are sitting on it,knocking and the door is jammed.
Whatever the case,I would like to be part of this holy thing about to be revealed.
I am watching with mature eyes and like what I see.

I'm still knocking though.

Na wah! Nne, you don't qualify any longer to 'knock' - your door has already been opened, and you will find plenty-plenty blessings that no man with long bia-bia can take them away!

It is partly because of your watchful eyes that I am still here - behaving myself!

@mrpataki again,

mrpataki:



This is far more serious than I ever anticipated!
Babyosisi what have you been seeking, which door have you been knocking? You mean I had my door closed all the while

I dey sorry for some people! You will soon be called upon to define the door, or better still be shown to the door - all things not being equal.

mrpataki:

**Mr Pataki goes to his nairaland door** I am patiently waiting too. This is getting hotter than the religion thread!

Aight. ***Cough. Coughhh!! Emm. . . Nebuchaddnezzar, seems you have some candidates out here who are willing to test-drive your NIF - "N[/b]ewly-[b]I[/b]mproved [b]F[/b]urnace"^®.

mrpataki:

Which is which now? Even my visions are getting blurred at the moment!

Who will bell the cat here?

While you are deciding, seems the cat is purrring and sharpening her claws!
Fear not - insurance cover you from your lawyer-friend in school (email you later!).

mrpataki:

@ goodguy,
I am sure you realise things are taking a newer dimension than what you first anticipated when you started this topic.

I cannot talk here. My prophetic [b]Visions needs a multitude of Counsel!

I suggest babyosisi should locked in a lonely thread for now till things are sorted here!

Awww, you can't do that at all - not at this critical stage of prophetic insight. Like I said, I'm still here behaving myself because of the very watchful eyes of my dearest babyosisi. Any attempt to see a visionless vision shall be resisted at knife-edge!

@Y'all, enjoy o jare!

Wey belloti now??

Uhm. . . I really don't remember how I landed this one "shahan". It's a male Armenian name for "profit maker" deliberately chosen to keep up a game between I and my sis. . . to see if anyone would ever guess I was [b]fe[/b]male! I missed my target by just a week!

It is Finnish. I don't understand it very much myself; but she's asking a question as to if there are past issues about Finland on the Forum that could be of interest to her/him.

@mrpataki,

I know. And in the next few days it will become even more serious, especially because Muslim apologists always appeal to conflicting theories (as in the case of "Professor Stadlin" and "Yoosuf al-Khoori").

babs787:

If you care, these are my first questions

[b]Question 1
Since Jesus came to die on the cross, it means that he is very aware of the contract. If so, why was Judas named a traitor for the fact it has been arranged that he would die?

Question 2
Why did he charge them to buy sword. Did I hear someone saying that one of his disciples that raised sword against the Romans was rebuked? Well, am still coming to that but the question now, why did he charge them to buy sword?

Question 3

a. why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray?
b. Could they not have prayed in the upper room?
c. Why did he go with his disciples to pray when only him can do the prayer afterall they didn’t pray with him but watched.

Question 4
Why did he take Peter, john and james further into the garden?

Question 5

a. Why did he pray to the extent of sweating blood.
b. what was the prayer for since he came to die.

Question 6

a. What did the angel of God came to strengthen him for?
b. Did he come to increase his doubts or fear?
c. To multiply his anxieties
d. Did the angel come to tell him that God had forsaken him in his disbelief?

This is my final attempt to help you come at a grown up discussion with a mature disposition.

How do these questions "prove" that Jesus was NOT crucified?

@lysaa,

lysaa:

@SHANHAN

i DON'T KNOW WHAT U ARE FEELING LIKE RIGHT NOW, MAYBE THE "KNOW ALLS" because YOU CLAIM NOT TO BE HEADING ANYWHERE BUT STILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS MONEY MATTER. IF I MAY ASK, HOW DOES IT CONCERN U ANYWAY? YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN IT AS A MATTER OF FACT. WHAT KIND OF CHRISTIANITY DO U PRACTICE? I REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR U.

Scream all you want in capital letters, it still does not wash the issue being discussed here. I asked a simple question and wondered why members of Christ Embassy have been so arrogant in their replies about the financial scam of the N49m "offering", which donnie challenges with his rhetoric: "Return which money?" That kind of attitude simply tells me that the personality-cult that now pervades you chaps at LoveWorld only helps your pride.

Stolen money should be returned - that is the way to maintain integrity; and not one member of LoveWorld has come forward with a responsible reply. That should give you a hint about the "kind of Christianity" I practise - one that does not cover up financial scams in the name of an MOG.

lysaa:

U SAY WE ARE COVERING UP THE MONEY ISSUE AND U THINK WHERE U STAND by pointing at it IS BETTER? MAKING UP UR MIND THAT WOTEVA IS SAID, U'LL KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT DO U THINK GOD IS RAISING UR HAND UP AS A WINNER? I WONDER IF U HAVE A FORGIVING SPIRIT. JUST WONDERING.

I'm not here to win anything in debates other than expose the 'holy' fraud that you guys will not give up. And just what is your idea of a forgiving spirit? Forgiving towards who - the MOG who refuses to return stolen money as "offering"? Or the members who are so arrogant as to cover up the scam with nothing better than "Return which money"?? Or yet still, the poor fellow who owned up to his shady deals? So, because you are a member of Christ Embassy, all other Christians should turn a blind eye to "holy" scams? So much for the type of Christianity you practise.

lysaa:

MENTIONING JESUS AND JOHN MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MONEY BUT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR. DONNIE JUST MENTIONED SAUL AND DAVID, THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES FROM THE APOSTLES THAT THEY HAD REASONS TO JUDGE THEMSELVES AND DID NOT. READ UR BIBLE.

You and donnie failed to mention anyone in the Bible who covered up financial scams as 'offering' on the basis of wearing a badge as an MOG. Neither Jesus, John the baptist, David, Saul nor any of the apostles were accused of this; and trying to bring them into the picture here is bacchanal.

Even if such a thing were thought possible by some MOG in the Bible, if at all possible, does it then mean you guys would have rushed to the Bible to "prove" that such a case was acceptable because such and such an MOG did it as well? Attitudes like that only make me sorry for some others who rush to the Bible to quote how Solomon had several wives as a "man of God" - just to "justify" the lust of their own MOG.

The Scripture references you guys gave have nothing to do with the issue of financial scam.

lysaa:

ITS NOT TO TELL U WE KNOW SCRIPTURES MORE THAN U GUYS ON HERE BUT WHEN SCRIPTURES ARE REFERRED TO, AS A CHRISTIAN WITH A HEART OF FLESH, IT CALLS FOR REASONING NOT WITH THE HEAD BUT WITH THE HEART.

A good heart seeks what is right, and makes good use of the head - both heart and head are given to us by God to function properly (II Tim. 1:7) so that no MOGs by any badge will make dunces of us. If a scam is a thing of the head, I do not see how conceivable it is permitted as another thing for the heart. Bad medicine, at best.

lysaa:

whether u want to keep talking about this matter, go ahead. i am done with it, if u need to know more on it, ask the same people that told u in the first place. they'd have latest msges for u.

Since you had nothing to say about the whole issue from the start; then leave off. A cover-up is not a Christian virtue.

Postscript:
@lysaa, believe me when I say this, my heart goes out to you in deep love and affection in Jesus; and I'm not trying to rubbish you personally in any way or form. What saddens me is the idea that some MOGs have become so venerated that people are willfully blind when such men have done wrong. Read my posts again about Pastor Chris - I'm not all out and negative about him. However, I don't accept the idea that just because he is a pastor of world-acclaim, we should just swallow everything in LoveWorld and pretend the issues don't exists.

@Amby,

The question as to the logic of calling Mary the "Mother of God" still begs answers. I wonder why you Amby and co have been silent on that? If it makes for good logic to call Mary the "mother of God" because Jesus is God, then why does the same logic not apply to the idea of calling Catholic women "mothers of God" or "brothers/sisters of God" as Jesus said of those in Mark 3:35? Perhaps, the same logic does not apply in the case of Mark 3 if these debaters are not so sure if they're doing the will of God.

Another way of looking at it: Since Jesus died on the Cross, did "God" die on the Cross for you, Amby? As there is no Scripture remotely suggesting the concept of "GOD" dying on the Cross; so there is no defence whatsoever for calling Mary the "Mother of God".

The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not in one verse of the entire volume of God's Word was Mary addressed as "Mother of God". To confess Mary as such is clearly to imply that she gave birth to GOD - which is never supposed in the Bible. However, everywhere the birth of Jesus is mentioned, it is in reference to His incarnation and humanity and not to His deity. The confession of Mary as the "mother of GOD" fails to recognize the Humanity of Jesus; and because His Humanity expresses the Incarnation (both the conception and birth) of Jesus, so Mary is often called the "mother of Jesus" in the Bible.

@nuru,

nuru:

Truth will definitely cause some people to rant but they don't really need to if the eyes are seeing. And they should work at the eyes to see the Truth, the Beauty of Islam, the Path of Salvation. You can't deny it.

After shamelessly ranting such brouhaha that you couldn't defend, one really would have thought you were the wiser for it by now. But you only prove yourself a total stranger to truth and decency.

nuru:

Somebody remains diabolical even after reading a clear-cut Hadith, he/she is having an illusion in his/her mind and falsely accused Holy men of rape. Does the onus of proof not lie on the accuser? Why must Nuru give you evidence that rape was not committed by the Muslims when you yourself read the Hadith. Do you not understand English? Even then, the theme of the Hadith has been explained but because most of you are sex-perverts, you fail to appreciate the message of the Hadith and choose to echo only issues of Sex.

I only wanted your evidence for your claim that the companions of Muhammad obtained the consent of those with whom they had coitus interruptus. Since that was your claim, then it is pertinent that YOU and no one else should be forthcoming with references to that. In your latest entry, you again failed to provide any reference and instead dribbled your way slyly with accusations that "most of you are sex-perverts."

Let me show you who a sex-pervert is:

He is one who thinks of nothing else than 72 virgins with cauldrons of liquor in paradise.

He is one who eroded any sense of morality to have had sex with a 9 year-old when he was old enough to be her grandfather.

He is one who received 'revelation' to marry any number of women that he lusted after (including his relatives) and at the same time forbidding his followers to marry more than 4 wives by the same revelation.

He is one who had no moral spine to caution his companions about the perversion of coitus interruptus while the Qur'an was being revealed.

He is one who, after having had sex with one of his numerous wives when his eyes fell on another woman, then afterwards pronounced that the woman advances like a devil.

He is one who sees nothing more than sex, sex, and more sex, so that his companions will praise him for having been blessed with the sexual strength of thirty men.

He is one whose life was humongously inconsistent in his sexual escapades, so that when queried about this, Muslim apologists would limply admit to such embarrasing adventures with the sad cliché of "Muhammad was just a man like anyone of us."

nuru:

Islam remains the only religion acceptable to God. The Christians and others that believed truly in Jesus Christ before hearing the Message of God from Muhammad will be admitted into Jannat. But whoever, and I repeat whoever hear of Muhammad, hear of the Quran and disbelieve will be a candidate of eternal doom. If his/her Lord wishes, he/she can be forgiven. This is the Eternal Truth.

Please pick up a dictionary and check out the meaning of "truth!" With all your repetitive inconsistencies, you devise a plan for consigning people to eternal doom for not believing in Muhammad and the Qur'an; then you relax your joke at the end of that noise with "if his/her Lord wishes." This is one more confirmation that you are neither here nor there.

nuru:

As for the treatment of women slaves in Islam, the man who received a revelation from his Lord and taught his fellows that slaves should be treated kindly could not turn round to be a rapist. Look at how beautiful the Quran puts treatment of slaves and women.

1. Emancipation of Slaves is great virtue (Chapter 90 Verse 13)

You make a caricature of "emancipation" of slaves. What is the real plight of women in typically Muslim/Islamic cultures today? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Even Iran or Saudi Arabia? How do you define "emancipation" in the face of double-slavery of mind and body? Women cannot walk the streets by themselves in typically Islamic cultures unless accompanied by their so-called husbands or a close male relative - nevermind that they're even then required to be all covered in the burka, and that such men are 'free' to go about with lustful eyes. Where is this 'emancipation' in typical Muslim cultures where learned Muslim personalities have had to openly admit that something is wrong with your type of ideology?

You really don't know a shade better than to commit yourself to such silly remarks with flaccid apologetics. Perhaps, you'd be all the better schooled in future posts as not to reveal your remote cubicle to reality.

@islampride,

islampride:

Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning):

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]

What the author does not really know is his lazy attitude to investigative thinking that keeps him busy spinning the spider webs of his researchers - Professor Stadlin and Yoosuf al-Khoori. Does the author realise indeed that Sura 29:41 is a contradiction to the very core of the disguised polytheism in Islam? While forbidding the worship of false deities, the Qur'an itself establishes the very same pretentious polytheism that Muhammad offered his followers. Anyone reading the plural pronouns (WE, US, and OUR) of the *Allah* in the Qur'an will recognize that Muslims unwittingly worship several deities in Islam.

islampride:

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard.

The author in his linear thinking fails to see the contexts of the texts he quotes. In the entire Bible, only Jesus Christ is particularly called "the only begotten Son" of God - and no other writer than John used that term for Christ (John 1:14 & 18; 3:16 & 18; and I John 4:9). That is what sets Him apart from all other expressions of seemingly akin terms used for Adam, Israel, Solomon or any other.

The "only begotten" points simply to "exact or vey same in essence". As used of Jesus Christ, the expression "only begotten Son" indicates One who alone exists in the very, exact essence as God Himself. That was what John was pointing out in John 1:1 - the Word was God.

What is remarkable in this double standard by the author of that post is his bureaucratic assumption that "in the Gospel of John itself" being a son "includes all the righteous servants of God." However, he fails to quote a single verse for that assumption (which was nowhere meant by John at all); nor does he apply the term to Muhammad as a "righteous servant of God" if he believed that Muhammad fits that description.

On the whole, while the author of that post made pretentious claims of believing in a Gospel which Jesus Christ received from "Allah", he made no effort whatsoever to discuss the contents of that same "Gospel" or Injil. Neither Muhammad nor any Muslim has seen that Injil, let alone pretend that there actually was one.

Second, Muhammad had no revelation at all from God; and all claims in the Qur'an that "Allah" sent down, revealed and confirmed the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are simply false. Muhammad seriously confused the Holy Spirit for the angel Gabriel; and the result was his disguised polytheistic religion, Islam.

Thirdly, when Muslim apologists ferret so-called researches to deny the authenticity of the Bible, they often come up with very divergent views as to what exactly occured. Instead, they make some weathered appeal to professors who theorize about some "student" who has no name in "the Alexandrian school"; and some other Muslim "scholar" will cook up a contradictory tale that has no evidence whatsoever.

The "invitation to think" (as the title suggests) certainly does not exist in the linear mindset of the author of the original article

@islampride,

islampride:

We have previously explained that the Gospel in which we believe, and no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it, is not the gospels that are in the hands of the Christians nowadays. Rather the Gospel in which we believe is that which was brought by ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) from Allaah. As for that which is in the hands of the Christians today, it is something else, and they themselves do not claim that Jesus is the one who brought it or wrote it. See question no. 47516.

I guess this is a reposting from another Islamic website. But then, its flaw is evident in the opening paragraph above. Even so,  the author did not once discuss the details of the Gospel which Muslims believe was "brought by Eesa (Jesus - peace be upon him) from Allaah." Where is that very Gospel, and what exactly does it say?

When Muslims claim that "no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it", we have once and again asked what that Gospel contained - the exact words; exact deeds; the Personality and claims of Jesus Himself; His doctrine about heaven, hell, God, man, righteousness and the Church; the prophetic connection of that Gospel with the Old Testament (including the Law of Moses [Torah] and the Psalms of David - both mentioned in the Qur'an); His life with the disciples/apostles; and the prophecies He gave critical to our age.

All that has been offered by Muslims to the above do not add up to a fraction, other than tales told by Muhammad in order to appeal to the Jews and Christians of his day to lend credence to his self-acclaimed prophethood. What is more remarkable is that, the Qur'an claims Allah "revealed" and "confirmed" the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (Injil); and yet, Muhammad failed to articulate the very elements of the of those Scriptures. Pertinent of all, there is no Holy Spirit in Muhammad's religion (he misconstrues Him for the angel Gabriel/Jibril), despite the fact that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures articulate and distinguish the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, there can be no revelation from God as to the Person, work and deeds of Jesus Christ - and that is what Muhammad fundamentally leaves out in his religion.

Something is very suspect in the claim to believe in an Injil that Muslims have no clue where it is today, and what exactly it says.

islampride:

. . .
Professor Stadlin says: The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John.

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew.
. . .

Quoted from Muhaaraat fi’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah.

It is strange indeed that they cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which they affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least. Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels.
(op.cit., p. 64)

Again we have asked such "researchers" as Professor Stadlin and the author of the text in Encyclopaedia Britannica a salient question: If the deity of Jesus Christ in John's Gospel is a fabrication, what then did Isaiah call the Messiah in Isa.9:6? Who in Isaiah's prophecy is called "the mighty God" - or is that a fabrication of the nameless student of the Alexandrian school as well?

How do Professor Stadlin and Encyclopaedia Britannica explain the Psalm of David (centuries earlier than Christ's birth) that speaks of the deity of "the Son" in Psa. 2:12 as One in whom people are blessed who put their trust in Him? And how blind could these so-called "professor" answer to Zachariah 12:10 that clearly enunciates the deity of the Saviour who was pierced - the very same One who pours out the Spirit of grace and supplications?

When Yoosuf al-Khoori denies that the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke mentioned the deity of Jesus Christ, he most certainly had not read those Gospels and was being dishonest. What then did these other Gospels mean when they wrote about Jesus being "the Son of God"?? Let's review:

Matthew: 'Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God . . . He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.' (ch. 14:33 & 27:43).

Mark:  'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God . . .And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.' (ch. 1:1; 3:11 & 15:39).

Luke: 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' (ch. 1:35).

So then, if he had ever read those Gospels at all, what dishonest claims was Yoosuf al-Khoori propounding about "that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels" about the deity of Jesus Christ??

So, what was meant by 'the Son of God' in the New Testament as used in reference to Jesus Christ if not His deity? This is the very confession that Muslims deny about Christ. They feel He could be called anything else - prophet and slave of "Allah"; but not "Son of God" - because, just as the Jews did, Muslims understand that to be none other than deity.

The problem with denying the deity of Jesus Christ is in many respects a matter of disregarding the prophecies of the Old Testament about the promised Messiah. Those Scriptures affirm in clear terms that the expected Saviour and Redeemer of man was none less than Deity Himself. When such theorists as Professor Stadlin and Yoosuf al-Khoori propound their denials, they only prove that they have not read the very Scriptures they deny.

What is even more startling is that the author of the post does not really know what to believe. Who was the nameless student of the Alexandrian school? And how does Professor Stadlin's interpretation agree with Yoosuf al-Khoori's theory? On the one hand, he quotes Professor Stadlin who denied the author of John's Gospel on the premise that it "was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school"; then he next quotes Yoosuf al-Khoori who affirms that "John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia".

Who is telling what here?? Why do Muslim apologists have to be so knavish in their posts? When people banter to dilated and discordant tales in order to deny the Gospels, something is seriously awry.

babyosisi:

We will delve into your other pasted areas one after the other,only if you can be calm and collected.
This is my final attempt to help you come at a grown up discussion with a mature disposition.

Perhaps the grammar there will prove too tough for his IQ as 'calm' and 'mature' never seem to be part of his dictionary.

@goodguy,

goodguy:

Leave Ope and I to sort ourselves out. He's my boy.

I'm surprised he didn't rack you to the ground for that statement!

goodguy:

Our houses are just less than a 5 minute walk apart, so you can still send the gifts to my own house .

Hehehehe!! Typical naija pickin.  Haven't you heard that I operate by prophecy - "The first shall be the last"?? In which case, you should take a 3 minutes walk to his house to collect ya gift when it arrives!

goodguy:

I will give him his own share that I feel he deserves. . . and that's even if the gift is shareable in the first place.

My advice: go to his house with an entire army barrack! It's a small but beautiful package from me (don't know what my sis has in mind for ya both).

goodguy:

I'm a goodguy, remember?

I remember; and because I want you in one piece, that's why my advice above!


@ope_emi,

ope_emi:

Eyan Gidi, thank you ojare.

Welcome anytime. Just take style know say I dey admire you; not for any e-kiss, but for answering that "goodguy" quite well.

ope_emi:

I know say my God no dey let me down ke, beni.

Adupe. Adura lo fa. But if he drag you outside and wrestle your teeth comot for your mouth, no 'adura' go help your case O.


@babyosisi,

babyosisi:

I'm getting lost on the thread,someone please steer me on course,I'm rowing in circles here.
who is eyeing who?

babyosisi:

stop speaking in parables shahan and co,some of us did not take literature in school lol

Nne, why u wan take lit-in-english reveal our ploy? Ever since some of us went into 'prophetic hibernation', we started seeing visions and 'eyeing' some undisclosed messages. That's why all the parables - and only the converted can receive the inheritance prepared for them from the foundation of Nairaland.

@goodguy,

goodguy:

Babyosisi, just relax and watch.  Seems to me that some peeps dey use style dey do "Holy toasting" for Nairaland.

That's part of the 11th commandment, and it is allowed.
However, there's no guarantee that keepers of that commandment will arrive in paradise!

ope_emi:

I beg, I am not among them. 

In that case, goodguy can go ahead and rack you to the ground!

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:


If the subject matter is about me , I suggest, you wait tire oh But if not, I will lurk around to see who you are talking about here. Till then, no further comments!

Wetin I do you people for Nairaland sef?
Am I that ugly that all the admirers are now leaving one by one? Abi make I show my face for my profile to reveal the unrevealable? Which kain prophecy you don receive wey dey make you back off like this?

Right, this leaves only one candidate - belloti! Whether or not he's married with kids and chances are slim of my surviving against 4 others under his insurance policy, at least he's not backing off my e-kiss!

Oya, belloti, wey you??