@combatant,

combatant:

@lafile and Shahan,

It will never make sense to you because the issue is your "ikoko obe" on which the foundation of christianity is laid.

I don't remember engaging issues with you before now, so you can either help your case or worsen it if you're a stranger to intelligence.

If someone was never sure about a document, why start off with it and try to weave it back to the New Testament? Is it that your summations are now found to be weaker than the spider webs you've spun, and that's why you came back with this tattered excuse to "forget the GoB and lets move on"?

As you can see, I'm least in the mood for your decayed drool. Try not taking it any further than this, unless you do have something more intelligent to say.

combatant:

I wouldnt be suprised if you come up with another thread saying that you have answered his questions but none of his questions from NT has never been given attention to nor answered but pretending never to have seen his questions from NT but hiding under the guise of GoB

And your job description is. . .??

How many times have replies been made to blabs787's posts and he came back with the dishonest claim that we "ignored" his questions? You could as well amuse away your time on such drivel if you also can't read posts.

davidylan:

A true christian is never afraid of criticism, he does not shy away from correction (whom the Father loveth he chasteneth) and is eager to learn new things from the scriptures. Apparently this are unIslamic virtues!

@davidylan,

I applaud your humility there. The fact was that I shared only my views on the subject on the authorship of Deuteronomy and Joshua - and it wasn't based on any religious authority. The problem with many people is that they cannot reason for themselves, and that is often the case in Islam.

@bari_kade,

I would rather you let his curses rest on him, as you already have shown clearly that they are non-transferrable to anyone else. Intelligent readers can see that he lied earlier, and you did well to post the Gospel narratives, clearly showing each delineation of the three denials of Peter.

Cheers.

@nikynike,

There is a true Church - and it is the Body of Christ as you said; so the first line ought not be there.

@Bobbyaf,

Great to see how you calmed down. Cheers.

@bari_kade,

You too.
However, I'll be waiting patiently for your sequel - perhaps you might just mention something I'd like to post; and I don't want to risk anticipating you. You seem to do a better job at it than myself. Cheers.

babs787:

Lets see how the issue is being sorted out. Christian against Christian.

At least civility exists between Protestants and Catholics. Can the same be said for the Sunnis and Shiites who are hell-bent on cleaning each other off the face of the earth - especially on their own soil? By the time they're done, then the Wahhabi Muslims are waiting in the wings to clean them both off the earth. It doesn't require a Forum for these Islamic sects to gun for one another's throats, though.

trini_girl:

People! Doesn't Jen33's garbage sound familiar?? How hard do you have to look to realize that this imposter is the irreverent REVEREND BACK ON THE PROWL!!! (or perhaps his protoge)

I still affirm one could count on your good investigative head when it comes to reading between the lines.

Jen33:

My reality is that God exists, but not as portrayed by the Christian Bible. Or the Muslim Koran, or by any supposedly ''holy'' book known to man.

Hardly surprising - we've heard this weathered line from folks who have a "reality" that floats in the air.

@babs787,

babs787:

@all,

Why are you trying to divert the thread to that of GoB? My questions have never been on GoB but from the New Testament. I used that as the introduction to my thread.

Maybe because you did not base your arguments on the NT, but used the GoB (that has been discredited by both Muslims and Christians) as a starting point. It would be the same as starting out with Salman Rushdie's epic, and working backwards into the Qur'an for suggestive lines.

@trini_girl,

trini_girl:

I am back! I don't think this forum is the same without us where is shahan and tayoD? Have they taken sabbatical?

Chei! This trini_babe thinks she's the only one who can appear and disappear without notice!

Anyway, I'm thousands of miles away from naija at the mo, and will be returning to our air-and-noise pollution in naija soon. _{How I hate the feeling that my hols are almost over!}

nuru:

I am happy, Islam is my own choice

I wonder since when Islam preaches choice?

@Jen,

Jen33:

Typical Straw arguments - picking holes in mundane aspects and ignoring the wider questions raised. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

The only person offering typical straw arguments is YOU; and as aptly descriptive of your posts, it shows you were only interested in the "mundane aspects" of empty queries in Walker & co's theories.

There's nothing sensible in Jim Walker's harangue, especially as anyone going through your cut-and-post volume of his knavery can't miss the fact that he was lying through his teeth in an attempt to short-change simpletons who could be baited so cheaply. Since you are so easily taken in by Walker's slobber, it's hardly surprising that you missed the real issue - he was simply being dishonest in his claims - and that is precisely the point in the concise rejoinders by bari_kade and 4get_me. As in their previous examples, let's sample a few more of Walker's prevarication.

Jen33:

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from [b]writings of other people. . .[/b]

All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. . .

they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts

The assertion that all claims about Jesus derive from "writings of other people" or "people who have never met an earthly Jesus" is a weak attempt to ignore the Gospels and epistles of the apostles who walked with Jesus in His ministry (compare Acts 1:21 - "these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us".

John positively identified himself in the Gospel bearing his name: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). He often referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (vs. 20), and "the other disciple, whom Jesus loved" (ch. 20:2).

In his epistle, the same John positively affirms that their accounts of the ministry of Jesus was first-hand, and not hearsays or writings of "other" people: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us" (I John 1;1-2).

Peter categorically deflates Walker's pretentious assertion in stating: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." (II Pet. 1:16-18 ).

In the face of these clear texts, someone starts off making pretentious allegations that there were no 'self-written manuscripts,' or that the documents were from 'people who had never met an earthly Jesus' - are we to give his cavil lies any notice?

Jen33:

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

Walker already made up his mind even before he considered the evidence before him - a classic example of prejudice. He pressumed that the apostles of Jesus Christ were giving information derived from "hearsay" when arraigned before a Jewish religious court of their day. Peter and John's bold affirmation before them was: "For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). This was their affirmation all through their ministry, as we noted earlier in II Pet. 1:16-18 where Peter emphatically stated that they were "eyewitness" of Jesus majesty; as well as that they had been with Jesus.

Jen33:

Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it ''worthless'' and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

Again, Walker's prejudice comes to the fore in the paragraph above. After having appealed to the personal and bias views of Origen, Eusebius and Martin Luther, he concludes that all the NT writings came from unknown authors. This is the worn-out currency of his premise; and the preceding answers for internal evidence in the texts just above affirms that the NT writers were clearly identified - Peter, John and others. To have even admitted "with the possible exception of Paul" is simply silly, because Elaine Pagels now has sealed lips on attempts to discredit the Pauline epistles.

Jen33:

Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of ''John'' come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John.

Another cheap interjection. A careful reader cannot miss the fact that the epistles of John, Gospel of John, and the Revelation have the very same author - the apostle John. Neither Walker nor his ficticious group of scholars in Asia Minor could even provide the deviation in style and content that they see in these documents.

The apostle John is sometimes called the 'apostle of love' in recognition of that as his theme. This in no way suggests that the other apostles negated love in their writings; but as far as style and content are concerned, we find it running through John's writings like a silver thread. Not only does the word appear more times in his Gospel than you find in each of the other synoptic Gospels; but also all through his epistles, he particularly uses the word in a perculiar way that tessellates with the style in his Gospel account.

Secondly, in style and content John uses a perculiar phrase in both his Gospel and epistles - "the biginning" (John 1:1 & I John 1:1). Not only does the phrase appear in the opening verses each of the Gospel and the first epistle; but notice also that John connects it with the idea of 'precedence and relationship' . This is obvious to any careful reader.

the Gospel: precedence - "In the beginning was the Word" - (ch. 1:1);
and, relationship - "the Word was with God" (vs.1),
"The same was in the beginning with God" (vs.2).

the epistle, I John: precedence - "That which was from the beginning" (ch. 1:1)
precedence - "ye have known him that is from the beginning" (ch. 2:14)
and relationship - "that eternal life, which was with the Father" (ch. 1:2).

Thirdly, more than any other of the Gospels, it is in John one finds the deity of Jesus Christ more positively and categorically affirmed. In the very first verse of John's Gospel, Jesus is called the Word (Logos), who infact is God (John 1:1). In his first epistle, he affirms that Jesus Christ is "the true God, and eternal life" (I John 5:20 - the Greek construct confirms this). And in Revelation, the same apostle identifies Jesus as the One whose name is "The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13), the very same appellation used in his first epistle for Jesus ("the Word" - I John 5:7).

Fourth, besides two texts (Acts 8:32 & I Pet. 1:19) that reference the word "Lamb" as pointing to Jesus as the divine Sacrifice, John's use of this term for Jesus remarkably tessellates in both the Gospel ('the Lamb of God' - John 1:29 & 36) and severally in the Revelation ("the Lamb" - Rev. 7:14 & 22:3).

Jen33:

In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts.

Walker plays it cheap again. John in his first epistle was concerned with doctrine, rather than with historical account as in his Gospel. There is a huge difference between the two, and Walker fails to see that. Yet, he proposes a fallacious argument that deviates from the content of the epistle.

The Gospel gives the account of an earthly Jesus - how He lived, what He did, where He went, people He encountered and their reaction and perceptions of Him, as well as the fact that John was one of those who witnessed His crucifixion (John 19:26).

The epistle on the hand, was written to edify and instruct Christians who already had the Gospel narrative. This is why the apostle John would leave no one in doubts as to the very fact that Walker argued against. John describes the fact that he was one of the eyewitness of an earthly Jesus in I John 1:1-3 ("we have heard. . .we have seen with our eyes,. . . we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life".

Several other themes in style and content evidence John as the author of the Gospel of John, his epistles and the Revelation. There's no missing the fact; and only on the basis of dishonesty and cavil would anyone like Walker propose silly, eristic theories such as you've posted.

What I'm simply interested in is: was Walker being honest or dishonest in his claims about the lack of witnesses for the historical Jesus? If you would claim he was being honest, then your case cannot be further helped until you resolve your mix-up in his openly dishonest claims.

@trini_girl,

How bodi? Been a while.

trini_girl:

The Word of God speaks of this fool called Jen33:-

A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God,"
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice

Yep, and it's sad that he couldn't make out the folly in Walker et al's misguided theories.

trini_girl:

My advice,

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

do not cast your pearls to swine.

I thought so, too. Just for the benefit of readers, I'll just post this once so people don't miss the gist at the core of this thread.

Cheers.

@topic,

Lol, I think belloti was trying to illustrate something salient about 'forgiveness', and we should not hold his nose too close to the grind about it. Afterall, he was not stating a doctrine of Islam, but rather simply narrating a story.

Sometimes, stories may not sufficiently illustrate a truth; but we all understand the morale that our friend was trying to pass across. Besides his stated 3 morales in his story, perhaps we might add that, 'the best among us in our most honest intentions still have weaknesses in our human transactions'. When this is the oft-repeated case, then we lose our integrity and respect before those who once trusted and held us in high esteem.

Problem is that the story stops short of a good finish as to illustrate how 'Allah' forgives the most dishonest among men; although it seems belloti was focusing more on Muslim readers than a wider audience.

@Genial,

Genial:

I'm sure that I did not suggest that the physical realm does not influence the spiritual. Perhaps you should read point 7 of the original post again.

I did. Don't know what I'm missing.

Genial:

See above. There is a difference between "influence" and "govern".

Precisely my point - and that's why they appear in italics in my posts.

Genial:

Quite accurate. This is one example where a physical action holds the key to the spiritual.

Enjoy.

@ope_emi,

ope_emi:

I was shocked when I saw this topic again. But in a different way.

I thought I saw transgendered, A Female(Optical illusions). 

No mind me O.

Infact, na ambulance them for take carry you just now! You no dey see road, abi you dey follow person drag kpafun?

Anyway, I no go mind for now. But one more mis-cross reading will invite siren.
Enjoy for now.

@mrpataki,

I no forget you O! I still dey olumo rock for this side Jordan to receive special revs and prophetic insight. Good for you if your assignment don complete and you now have all the vision for the task. As soon as Gehazi blow trumnpet, rain go fall.

mrpataki:

If I catch you with belloti again, ojigbijigbi! you will see what I will do for belloti!

Sorry sir! I no go play truancy lai-lai again!

I thought I'd be bored as sis has returned to school. But me ke?? Infact, na now my holiday start proper! If these people fit gee me resident visa to stay, I go just leave those heavy-weight political thugs for naija while I cool off here!

naijacutee:

I'm sick of posts like these. I'm not even going to bother reading it.

Lol.

@Genial,

Genial:

God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Prayer and worship are not physical exercises. They are spiritual, and overflow into the physical.

Prayer and worship are spiritual activities that occur on earth in the physical world. That they are spiritual activities does not negate their physical aspects.

Genial:

This is an example of a seed that is both spiritual and physical. "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom." And "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me. . . . as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me".

Aye!

Genial:

It is "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven", and not the other way round. “. . . whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” is a declaration that grants spiritual authority, and may also be read as "shall have been bound in heaven".

Read my post carefully: I don't think I suggested that it was the other way round.

Besides, if man's prayer does not influence the response of the spiritual realms, then it is highly improbable that man should need to pray in the first place. "Ask and it shall be given" - does not suggest an idea of "whatever you ask shall have been asked in heaven!"

Spiritual authority has its place - as in the case of binding and loosing. However, man's activities have a huge part to play in influencing the response of the spiritual realm.

Genial:

Your actions on earth can be spiritual. Their physical manifestations only show what has happened/is happening in the spiritual.

It does not follow in all cases. A man first has to repent and believe in Jesus Christ before mercy and forgiveness are received. In the same vein, it is not to be misconstrued for the idea that a man's repentance on earth is only showing that he has first repented in the spiritual realms before it manifested in the physical.

KAG:

Just so you know, the Gospel of Barnabas is "considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late and pseudepigraphical" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas). I honestly don't see how anyone can take the Gospel seriously. Carry on.

Wait until he comes back with his anthem of "you ignored my questions!"

nuru:

The Hadith you quoted did not say coitus was done without the consent of the captives. And if you must know, females too, used to have men captives.

I just can't believe that an adult would gabble such applesauce in a public forum. Where is the evidence for the consent/permission that Muhammad's brigand obtained from the women they raped? Was it before or after the rape that the companions sought the consent of their victims?

@bari_kade,

bari_kade:

@babs787,

I quietly watched the discussions progress in various threads and had to wonder that you were going round in circles. After your questions were well served with clear answers by some of the discussants, it is surprising that you're here still trying to deny that they have been put to rest under your repeated excuse that they were "ignored". This is why you convince readers that you do more blabbing than face issues, and I trust that if you really have a genuine head to reason, your attitude will change for the better.

Let me remind you that no one "IGNORED" your questions, and several answers have been offered. You could only disagree with the answers at best; and not rather pretend that they were ignored. Here, let me remind you in just a few instances of the fact that your questions have been answered and were not "ignored" by shahan ~~

1. shahan's sound and comprehensive reply to every single one of the 12 questions you posed on Did Jesus For Our Sin? Which Sin?.

2. shahan's sound and comprehensive reply to your question about the authorship of Deuteronomy: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and in this link.

3. shahan's carefully outlined answer to your allegations and accusations of lies and stealing against Jesus: again in The Second coming of Jesus Christ.

This repeated excuse of your questions having been "ignored" is really a tattered and weathered one and does not help your arguments at all. Please desist from these childish whining and let's have some sense in your inputs.

I admire your courage to reason with blabs787. Obviously he has problems straightening out his English and that is why he supposes that any answers to his questions are to be taken as "ignoring" him. Let him be: he has problems understanding himself.

@Genial,

I enjoyed much in your first post on the thread. However, as a Christian I'm persuaded that the spiritual and the natural are mutual/interrelated. Certainly, the physical realm is mostly governed by the spiritual realm; but then, the physical/natural actions of man have direct influence on the spiritual realms.

The example of prayer and worship is a scoring factor on the statement that the activities in the physical influence the spiritual. It is man who prays "let Thy Kingdom come", and then God responds with power and glory. Man's activities in this respect will influence the response of the Spirit - either for good or bad. Another example thereto is the 'sowing' of our financial gifts on the physical plane; and the consequent spiritual harvest that follow such actions.

Ultimately, God rules over all things. And in His sovereignty, He does not impose anything on man. In the divine economy, the heavens rule over the earth; but the actions of man on the earth influence the response of the heavens.

Cheers.

@bari_kade,

Needless to say, I have enjoyed your treatise on the Sabbath, especially on the stipulations thereto. Indeed, anyone who seeks to be justified by a sabbatical Law based on the Old Testament and OC is missing the point of God's New Covenant in Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, I know you started out calmly offering a good exchange of ideas with Bobbyaf; but your recent rejoinders sound like a no-nonsense approach towards him. This, perhaps, is due to the fact that he was "launching" attacks on you instead of stating his points. Could I offer that you keep your calm and share the good insight on the subject that God has blessed you with? It will both help your readers appreciate your valid points and praise God for His grace upon you.

On the whole, solid arguments in yours - and please keep up the approach of highlighting your inputs with Biblical references.

Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

@ Shahan

Welcome! I just want to ask you a simple question.

Before the law of 10 commandments was given on the mount how did the people who existed before Moses know how to distinguish right from wrong?

Are you 100% certain that there were no standards of righteousness before the mount Sinai experience, and how was that standard expressed if there was any?

Whenever people, including the patriarchs sinned how did they know that what they did was wrong if they were not told about what was wrong and what was right?

Thank you for welcoming me. Lol, Bobby. . . when are you going to be open to discussions? Right, you wanted to ask "a simple question" and you ended up asking 3 questions! I'm tempted to answer them, but i'll refrain as Bari_kade has comprehemsively done so.

I'll urge you to humbly consider his rejoinders and see his germane inputs - especially the recent ones dealing with the Institution and Stipulations of the Sabbath. It won't hurt to carefully consider his points, especially because they are founded on God's sure Word and offer a contextual balance.

Perhaps these verse might help to throw some light to your questions though - Rom. 3:21-22 >> "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference."

Bobbyaf:

I want you to view those questions in the light of:

Roman 2:14,15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

One question to help this - on what covenant is verse 15 speaking of a "law written in their hearts" - the Old Covenant or the New?

Cheers.

@bari_kade,

I'm really impressed by the way you handled the subject, and how you've related issues by comparing scripture with scripture. Thank you for clearly outlining which commandments were given to Adam as distingushed from what is called the Law of Moses. It would be interesting to read some more of your thoughts about the Sabbath, and how this applies to the Christian position.

Cheers!

I think you gentlemen should leave opinions aside and actually trace issues back to the core of the religions. Muslims and Christians clearly do not worship the same God.

@mrpataki,

I go get back to you soon - I still dey receive 'prophetic vision' on the mountain for you; and by the time I'm done, infact Gehazi's case will be more understood! As for belloti, una be bad belle - why una no tell me say e don marry before?

Anyway, enjoy - and see y'all soon.

goodguy:

For early momo?  Correct babe!

No mind am o jare. Na jealousy wan finish am for here. We were supposed to go for early morning prayers with some Christians in a nearby church. But since she stayed up almost all night reading her lawyer-books, she pleaded 'tired' when our host came to call us up. Lol.

goodguy:

Yeah!  That's what I typed initially, actually.  I don't know how it got changed.  I was right afterall.   So Shahan na the Akobi of the Idile?  That's cool, really cool.  

I hear you! Whether or not you know how your initial post got changed, na by prophecy! You were always wrong afterall; but the hint I often provided should have helped you if you had listened to mrpataki's prophecy! The hint was that I was the most radical among the lot - but you only got the drift after the Akobi has now been brought out.

goodguy:

Na God.

Yipee!!!  Na na na na na!

Believe me, when I got back to our room and my sis told me you got the Melbourne zoo by a single guess, I doubted her until she showed me on the PC! So, okay, I owe you something special when I'm back from my hols out here.

goodguy:

*sings*  
              Winner oh oh oh, Winner!
              Winner oh oh oh, Winner!
              Satan you don lose o, Winner!
              kpatakpata you go loose forever, Winner!

The good thing is that almost everyone is a winner in one way or another. But as is said in the golden rule, the first shall be the last, abi? So, shall we say that your own gift be given to ope_emi who just joined in here!

goodguy:

Sure, sure!!  [no blame me, na mixed feelings

That'll be good - to confirm that you got mlks_baby's gift. No blame her - she's always 'lawyerful' these days!

goodguy:

I wish you the very best out there.  And I wish you great success in your exams.  May God be with you.  Amen.

Amin and Amen. Me sef go soon write exam! _{I just hate the feeling of resuming school!}

Phew! After how many days absence, I feel so lost on the Forum. That little sis of mine has spilled the beans - and I can see there are no winners but a bundle of losers!

Anyway, now that she's gone back to school, it gives me great pleasure to relax - as I'm owing nobody any winnersloser's gifts!

I'll come back and share how y'all are going to be lashed!

Enjoy.

@bari_kade,

Enjoyed your entries, especially on the Sabbath.

Like. . .

tif for 'thief'

and

rog for 'rogue'?

babyosisi:

bellotti you stand absolutely no chance until you declare for Jesus,even after that we need to make sure you're just not pretending in order to get a fine girl like shahan into your Islamic embrace lol

@babyosisi,
Like I said before, just collect the wines from goodguy, seel them to belloti or Uncle Olabs, pocket the money and let me wait behind the scenes with "something" for belloti! Actually, jokes aside, he's right - I know that far, that Muslims are allowed to marry Christians and not the other way round. But standing a chance for this radical lady shahan. . . hmmm, we go write an extra volume for Britanica!

mrpataki:

@ belloti,

No come dey use sand sand wash face here!

@mrpataki,
Leave my dearest alone O. . . or I go take back my e-kiss from you and add am to his own!

@belloti,

belloti:

I thought i was the one going for a holy kiss with shahan, prelude to the altar.
You know its allowed in Islam, Baby? i mean to marry a christian.

Oh my dearest of all. . . come closer. . . closer still. . . and even closer. Let me warm your heart with a larger-than-life e-kiss:

[size=14pt]E-KISS[/size]

Notice also that it's in red - your favourite colour!!

From day one, thou makest my heart to tumble. . . thou sweptest my feet off the net till I miss road. . . if thou wert to ask me, I would say: gladdest thou any other than me - even among the fairest of the damsels like mukina2?? I wouldest that thou say nothing for the moment until I deal with the readers who pry our exchanges!

--- --- --- --- --- ---
[size=14pt]Now, na wetin the rest of you dey read? Una name na belloti??[/size]
--- --- --- --- --- ---

Bo, my dear belloti, let's shoo from here for the moment and contact privately. IM me. . . or drop me an email - there's something I have in mind for thou!


_{Bruuhhaaahhaaahhaaa! >>>***shahan disppears from stage to wait for belloti with a razor dripping something in red!}