₦airaland Forum

TV01:
The request I made of TayoD is open to all.

Please detail the scriptures showing that we must strive for or as a result of the "covenant" acquire material wealth. I'd appreciate NT references and not the overworked Abrahmas blessings or variations thereof.

'Strive for' material wealth?? I'm not quite sure I could mirror the Gospel of Jesus Christ on that. . . unless somehow we would have to re-write the Bible!

When I read scriptures like 1 Timothy 6, it seems more to the point that we are asked to instead set our hearts on God Himself. In verse 9, we read: 'they that will be rich' (in other words, 'strive for material wealth') fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition'. That doesn't sound like upward mobility; but rather like a dance on a very steep slope!

Sure enough, the Bible recognizes the fact that there are very wealthy Christians - but they are urged to not set their hopes on uncertain riches (vs. 17); and to the young man Timothy, the apostle Paul had one word to him regarding the desire to be rich: 'O man of God, flee these things' (vs. 11).

Does that mean Christians are to be impoverished? By no means! We trust in the living God - for He is well able to richly provide us all things to enjoy (vs. 17).

Cheers all.

Lol, Seun. You certainly know that jagunlabi didn't make any reference other than what he thought.

The question is easy enough to grasp if one takes the time to understand the context of words used as we read them in our English Bibles. Here's an offer - the word 'fear' in the verse (Prov. 1:7) as proffered by monshege is properly to be understood as 'reverence'.

Hi @KAG,

KAG:
Exactly! When the challenge to find the connection between Jesus' story and the Easter bunny and Egg was given out, South Park rose to the occasion with grace; others decided to leave it be. At the end of the day, everyone had a laugh and shared some hugs.

Well, there again. I don't see the connection at all.

KAG:
But is saying the same as doing?

No, it's not. It's quite a challenge, I must admit; but then I might try and make an attempt sometime soon.

Cheers.

@donnie,

donnie:
To expose darkness is the same thing as putting on the light but definitely not the same as fighting darkness. You are the light, just show the light.
To fight darkess is wasted effort without knowledge. Just put on the light and the darkness will disappear! let them see your good works and glorify God. You do the right thing and they will learn. All this hatred you are spitting will not change anything.

Please donnie, aside from this academic cyclical reasoning, one question: how much darkness has "diappeared" by your putting on the light?

We are expressly told that ungodliness (another form of 'darkness') will increase - 2 Tim. 2:16. Our part is to shed this otiose reasoning that everything will be well and bad things will "disappear" by remaining mute and passive about deception and darkness.

donnie:
You guys talk about yourselves being watchmen. Well, i too am one, even though not of the same kind as you. it is important for you to undersyand that there is order in the house of God. He put those leaders there; you didn't.

There are gifts and there are callings. Be sure that you recieved clear instuctions form the Lord to do what you are doing otherwise, you will be sorry for functioning were you are not called or gifted to function. If you are called to do what you are doing now, the power of God will be with you and there will be results. If you are not, that same power is against you right now.

This is missing the mark by a million miles, and makes us suspect all the more that anyone who applauds these deceptions is actually doing so because they drink from the same cistern! Can you please enunciate from God's holy Word that the deception people have been decrying in this thread are actually the 'gifts and callings' of God?

donnie:
Do you remember Miriam?

Numbers 12:

  1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

   2And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

   3(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

   4And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.

   5And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.

   6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

   7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

   8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

   9And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

   10And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

Did Moses do right thing by marrying the Ethiopian Woman? I don't know. But was it Miriam's place to speak against the man of God even though she herself was a prophetess? Well, the result of her action can answer that question.

Let me summarise the gist of that passage. Mariam's complaint was NOT about the Ethiopian woman whom her brother Moses had married - she only used that as an excuse for the real grouse she had against him. The squawk in question was this: "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses?" (vs. 2). If you want a comprehensive input to that, I'll be glad to offer you the same.

Now, using Numbers 12 to stymy speaking out against deception in the name of Christianity simply does not cut the cookie. In the first place, Moses is not on the same pedestal with those who peddle a gospel of greed; and I haven't read that the issue here is about anyone marrying an Ethiopian. Secondly, the Bible makes plain that those preaching the Gospel for the sake of 'merchandise' are to be marked out for who they really are - and the Scriptures call them by name (2 Pet. 2:1-3)!

One question, donnie: could you show me where the Bible stipulates that whoever speaks out against deception in the Christendom will invite leprosy upon themselves?

The One:
Babs787

You are here discussing something that is academic at best when there are issues that affect us as we speak and you have chosen to ignore them. Since you won't come there, I have come to you. I posted the topic below

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-46741.0.html

and I need your input to that. These are issues of real life issues and not academic issues such as contradictions and what have you. Hope to see your input there!!

Hi babs787, please do attend to the above request - many are waiting.

mrpataki:
I learnt about the origin of relationships

Wow! That would be awesome! Can you share, please?

I enjoyed a message on the significance of the resurrection, not merely as a doctrine; but even more as experience that should hold true in our lives and and relationships. Because Jesus defeated death and rose again, we have a blessed hope. The reality of that hope in a believer is manifested in what he does with it on earth. One way of enjoying this blessed hope is to S.H.A.R.E. it with others.

S - S[/b]eek out the needs of others, just as Jesus came to seek and to save sinners.

[b]H - H[/b]elp others find the only Hope that God offers in His Son, Jesus Christ.

[b]A - A[/b]ppreciate others by seeing them with eyes of divine love (agape).

[b]R - R[/b]elate to others, be relevant to them, even though some may be bitter against the Christ who loved us rebels enough to go to the Cross.

[b]E - [b]E[/b]schew evil in every form: for only by consistent holy lives will people see the authenticity of the power of Christ's resurrection in the believer's testimony.

Enjoy - and happy Easter again!

Hi @all,

There's no need for anyone to be offended. It's either we as Christians take the challenge or leave it (1 Pet. 3:15-16). At the end of the day, even where answers are offered, no one is compelled to abide by any answers - nor even any challenge for that matter.

Personally, I believe that the Lord Jesus said He would rise from the dead on the third day (Mark 9:31) - and that for me makes all the difference.

Cheers.

The point is that, whoever is celebrating or not celebrating any day, it is to the Lord they do so.

Romans 14 -

[b]⁵[/b]One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

[b]⁶[/b]He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[b]¹⁰[/b]But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

[b]¹³[/b]Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Bobbyaf:
Really now!

Yep. Did you miss out?

Bobbyaf:
and yours is?

Already stated - review it.

@nuru,

nuru:
Yes I believe in the genuine teachings of Jesus Christ.

While you may be persuaded about your answers, I would like to ask you: WHAT are the genuine teachings of Jesus Christ?

nuru:
Apart from that, there is guarantee of SALVATION in Islam.

Not much of a problem. But while allowing you time to reflect on that, I'll come back to show you a few things otherwise that there is NO guarantee of salvation in Islam. The references you gave from the Qur'an are noted as well.

udememi:
Things are so messed up in life

Huh? Is the smoking party still on? Wey those wey smoke 22 wet wraps??

Anyhow, no be today this weed-speed start!! Click on this link and have a go on another weed topic. But remember: no grass-weed for any 'speed-party' in heaven! And if you must continue, be sure your 'weed' will find you out (Num. 32:23)!

This explains why there is so much terrorism and bombing amongst the Muslims

Let's try and re-phrase that, as some Muslim apologists would rather read it in the headlines:

"This explains why there is so much terrorism and bombing amongst the Muslims" = "This explains why there is so much PEACE AND TOLERANCE amongst the Muslims"

And this one. . .

". . . when you turn on the news, the Muslims are always blowing up building in the name of Allah and highjacking planes, killing innocents in the name of Allah."

Hmmm. . . all I can say is that, it's painful for the millions of Muslims who do NOT engage in these atrocities to see their faith suffer so much derogation for the crimes of a few. I do not believe in the tenets of Islam; however, it cannot be maintained that the Muslims are always blowing up buildings and hijacking planes and killing innocents. Some of them live very exemplary lives and frown on these barbarities - and we all should.

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
My thoughts are totally different from what has been discussed so far. First of all, it is a shame that the Body of Christ is still fixated on an issue the Bible regards as an elementary principle. No wonder we are in such a bad shape - we do not fully grasps the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Well, it is quite a sad state of affairs that many of us as Christians have issues to debate - all the better, I think, as these are efforts towards a better understanding of what God would have us be and do in our walk with Him. If we assume that all's well and these issues should long have been put behind us without having a good grasp of them, what shall we do when people betake themselves to yet another type of baptism - that spoken of in Scripture as "baptized for the dead" (I Cor. 15:29)?

Oh no - it is not a shame that these issues are still being discussed. There's a gap of over 19 centuries between us and those who first believed and what they practised. We thank God for the NT, so let's humbly open its pages and read it - and I believe you're doing that in some measure.

TayoD:
Basically, there are 3 different kinds of baptism mentioned in the NT. These are:

1. The baptism of John - Water Baptism
2. The baptism with the Holy Spirit - This is different from the infilling of the Holy Spirit or the annointing of the H.S.
3. The baptism with fire - meant for the chaff or the children of disobedience at judgement.

Let me offer one more in addition to your list of baptisms:

4. The Baptism of Trial - missed often by many of us Christians: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50); see also Matt. 20:22-23). In its simplest form, it refers to the absolute surrender of man's total faculty to God's will, even in the face of death and danger. John 21:18-19 illustrates this type of baptism.

TayoD:
I believe Jesus was refering to the baptism of John in Matthew 28:19 and the way to do it is exactly what Jesus mentioned - In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Jesus wouldn't have a problem asking the baptism to be done in His name if He so requires. At least, we see this in His teachings on prayer.

I don't take the view that Matt. 28:19 teaches the baptism of John. The event in Acts 19:1-5 teaches the distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism. Both are by immersion in water; but they are not exactly the same thing. After the dozen disciples revealed that they only knew the baptism of John in Acts 19, the apostle Paul explained the difference between the two (vs. 4), and went on to baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus (vs. 5).

It is clear that when the apostles baptized people in the name of the Lord Jesus, they didn't mean at all to disregard the injunction of Matt. 28:19. Not many of us realize that the verse is NOT a 'formula', in just the same way that many people think of the Lord's prayer as a formula (Matt. 6:9-13). Rather, the Lord Jesus spoke in absolute terms of fulness: that to be baptized in His Name is to be baptized in the Name of all that God has revealed of Himself - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not by happenstance that the Lord Jesus first announced His authority in verse 18: 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth'. Following this, He immediately gave the commission with these words: 'Go ye therefore. . .'

Peter's remarkable and bold statement in Acts 4:12 should help our reasoning here: 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' Thus, it was in the Name of the Lord Jesus that baptism was offered to all who believed. The same thing is confirmed in Acts 10. As soon as Peter announced that, 'through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins', the Holy Ghost fell upon all who heard his words (vss. 43 & 44). Thereto, the apostle commanded them to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord' (vs. 48).

Perhaps the crucial question here is: Why the name of Jesus? The answer is simple enough - that Name represents all power and authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). That same Name is above every other name to which every knee bows, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

This is why I believe donnie was making sense to have pointed out that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus Christ, and in Him we find our completeness (Col. 2:9-10).

Again, that's my persuasion.

Bobbyaf:
@ Donnie

This is not biblical in any form, or fashion. It only goes to show how far you all will go just to prove a point. Think about it logically and sensibly. The name Jesus was only ascribed to the Son at His birth, so your argument is false when you say that the father's name is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit's name is Jesus. You only say that because you have failed to read and understand plain English. Let us examine what the scripture says in Matthew 28.

It is true that donnie's insinuation was wrong that the 'name' of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. However, isn't it rather overboard to launch into sly invectives in your first engagement with him?

Bobbyaf:
To be baptised in the name of Jesus isn't different from being baptised in the name (authority) of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit

There - that is precisely the point donnie was trying to make in his original post:

donnie:
In my opinion, neither of the two Schools of  thought is wrong and  this is my arguement:

The father, Son and Holy spirit all answer to the name of Jesus. Notice it did not say "in the name(s)  of the father and of  the son  and of the Holy Ghost, " but it said, " in the name(singular) of the father , "

@abdkabir,

Appreciate your response. Here are my observations:

abdkabir:
It seems U arent getting me. My position was that of a critical analysis of the Veracity of the Total Divinity of the New Testament. I thought i made it clear my analysis was in no way to malign Christianity as i am a fan of it though i'm a Muslim.

I didn't take you up on maligning Christianity. Rather, my riposte was to offer you some pointers to think through such that the divine inspiration of the Bible becomes obvious to you. Most Muslim apologists often take the position that the documents of the NT have been altered; so that it provides them with grounds for doubting just about any verse that doesn't square with the tenets of Islam.

The issue is not on when and where the canon of the NT was compiled. Rather, the question is: Were such texts as John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 scribbled into the Bible 300 years AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection? The obvious answer is No. That they were collated years after His ascension in no way affected what the documents themselves already said.

abdkabir:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Date_of_composition

That suggest at least 300 years after Jesus.

@least that would suggest a nearer originality of the Quran than that of the Bible.

The issue of 'originality' still leaves so many questions unanswered as to the claims of the Qur'an. It is rather of no consequence that the years inbetween were 30 or 300. What is more to the point is: what claims do they really make?

On the one hand, the Bible attests to the deity of Jesus Christ - showing that He is both the Son of God and God incarnate for our redemption. On the other hand, the Qur'an denies everything with regards to the deity of Jesus, and even considers it an unforgiveable blasphemy! Yet, there are verses in the Qur'an itself that lauded the Bible; and no Muslim to my knowledge has been able to provide proof for Muhammad's personal accusation against the same Bible the Qur'an once praised.

abdkabir:
At the end of the Day. Who cares, if its chritianity of Islam. What matters is that we are believers in a World of peace.

At the end of the day, the peace we all seek doesn't seem to be found in Muhammad's 'original' Islam. This is why such banalities of Islam being a peaceful religion is best considered otiose.

Cheers.

Bobbyaf:
@ Stimulus

Is anyone in this thread debating that? Stick to the thread topic!

If you can read, my point is exactly on the topic.

TayoD:
Fist of all, I think the word 'pagan' is being used to mean 'gentile.' That being said, I am more in agreement with the guy who refered to Melchizedek as a 'pagan' priest.

That was why I asked in the first place, because the word "pagan" is largely misleading.

@donnie,

donnie:
When you become a man of prayer, you talk less. You choose your words because they are powerful and you will have love and blessing to give to the world. Jesus said, I will build my Church. That is His job, Not yours. Do not try to fight darkness, Just put on the light and the darkness will disappear.

While appreciating your persuasion on issues of this sort, I'm afraid that they do not rise to the crux of the gangrene in Christendom (not, the Body of Christ).

A man of prayer is a fighter - his job is to fight darkness: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). Paul was a man of prayer - as well a fighter against darkness. He did not employ carnal weapons or means (2 Cor. 10:4); but he definitely exposed deception, rather than assume the passive role of just praying without action.

Whether on the internet, on the streets, on the pulpits, in magazines and other media, godly people will go beyond mere praying - they will warn others, as Paul did (Acts 20:31 and 1 Thes. 5:14).

We should not cease praying for ALL. However, when people begin to peddle the Gospel for what it was not meant to be, then godly believers should speak up! If we can quote such texts as 'tell it not in Gath' (2 Sam. 1:20); then we should remember also that as watchmen we are mandated to 'blow the trumpet' - but to do so in love. For if we do not sound the alarm, how would others know that they might be warned and to take heed? Please read Ezek 33:3-7.

We should both pray and warn ALL.

BRMJANE:
THERE IS ONE THING I HAVE OBSERVE IN THE T.B.JOSHUA MINISTRY. I OBSERVED THAT HIS MINISTRY IS GROWING STRONGER AS THE CRITICISM INCREASES.

WHAT DID THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES NOT SAY ABOUT OUR LORD JESUS, THEY EVEN CALLED HIM A DEMON. THE MORE THEY CRITICIZED HIM THE STRONGER HIS MINISTRY GREW.

THE SCRIPTURES ALSO STATES THAT A PROPHET IS NOT HONORED IN HIS HOME.

WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? WHO ARE WE TO CONDEMN? I DON'T KNOW IF MOST OF YOU READ YOUR BIBLE, IF YOU DO, YOU WILL RECALLED WHEN THE PHARISEES BROUGHT A PROSTITUTE TO HIM TELLING HIM THAT IT WAS THEIR CUSTOM TO STONE WOMEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF *F* TO DEATH. WE ALL KNEW WHAT HE SAID AFTER THAT.

WE CONDEMNING HIM ARE GUILTY OF SIN AND AS A RESULT FACE THE SAME DAMNATION THAT HE WILL FACE IF HE IS NOT FROM GOD.


I'M NOT AGAINST HIS MINISTRY, I NEVER MISSED HIS MORNING SERMONS ON AIR WHEN I WAS IN NIGERIA. AS A MATTER OF FACT I MISS IT NOW COS THERE IS NONE LIKE THAT OVER HERE.

Sad, sad, . . . terribly sad and flawed. Have you ever heard the word "discernment"?

Your basis of celebrating such ministries could be used as well for celebrating just about any false prophet, false teacher, and pseudo-Christian cult.

Was Muhammad not "criticized"? Oh, yes. . . and "THE MORE THEY CRITICIZED HIM THE STRONGER HIS MINISTRY GREW!!"

Joseph Smith nko? Again, it could be argued that. . . "THE MORE THEY CRITICIZED HIM THE STRONGER HIS MINISTRY GREW!!"

So, people could simply be applauded because their ministries are said to be growing "stronger"??

BRMJANE:
WHAT I'M SAYING IN ESSENCE IS THAT WE ARE NOT TO TAKE GOD'S PLACE IN JUDGING. LETS LEAVE THAT TO GOD.

Since we are to "leave that to God", perhaps you take the position of many I've come across who never read the following texts in their Bibles:

1 Cor. 10:15 - "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." (Apostle Paul did not do a backflip when scrutinized and quote, as many do with red alert alarm: "Look here, TOUCH NOT MY ANNOINTED!!".

1 John 4:1 -- "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

I'm categorically saying that the basis many people use for discerning many "Christian" ministries today actually lacks discernment. Make una tread softly-softly.

TV01:
There is not such thing as the doctrine (or gospel) of prosperity. What there are, are false teachers trying to disguise their concupiscence as biblically justified.

I hope my input would not be stretching issues; but then, the Bible teaches the prosperity (spiritual and material) of God's people. The difference (in my opinion) is that godly believers are not to focus on materialism to the detriment of their spiritual call in Christ.

@auwal87,

auwal87:
Thank God, I have to Go now, if you have anything to say(davidlayn), you can say, but you will not see my reply untill maybe tomorrow, because I have many things to do (not just forum), tek kia,

When you return, please take a close look at your misrepresentations:

auwal87:
Did God mention widows?

Paul says;

"Now concerning the unmarried (widow), I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." Cor. 7:25
- - - - - - -

Here now in Cor. 7: 25,39, and 40, Paul says that there are no rules for widows, they are free to marry anyone they want because the Lord has not set any rules concerning widows.

I Cor. 7:25 - "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

The word you used in that verse does NOT read as "widow" in the Bible. Rather, it is a word that is used in reference of an unmarried woman. In Greek, it is called παρθένος [parthenos - par-then'-os: a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter: - virgin - Strong's Concordance].

Why do Muslims like so much to misrepresnt the Bible and then turn round and accuse Christians of lies? Is it because Al-Taquiyya (the Islamic tenet of lying) is such an incurable virus that these Muslims cannot do any better?

Besides, the Bible teaches that JESUS IS GOD!!

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=2667.msg1020516#msg1020516 date=1175869061]I'm alarmed at the level of error on this thread!

Melchisidek was the King of Salem, and a pagan priest.[/quote]What do you mean by "pagan priest"?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=2667.msg1020516#msg1020516 date=1175869061]His order was after the order of Melchisedek, the King of Peace, having no mother or father, no royal lineage, but pagan.[/quote]The Bible does not represent Melchizedek as "pagan".

donnie:
Many times as in the case of Moses before The Angel in the burning bush, when the bible uses the term The Angel of the Lord, we should be careful 'because it could be refering to the Angel of His presence, the Holy Spirit.

Likewise, the man who stood before Josuah, with his sword drawn, who cammanded Josuah to take of His shoes and who introduced Himself as the captain of the Lord's host was the Holy spirit of God.

I'm not quite sure that The Angel of the LORD in the OT is to be interpreted as the Holy Spirit. When one compares all related Scriptures speaking of Him, there's only One who bears that appellation - the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

@donnie,

donnie:
This arguement has been on in Christiandom for long.

While some believe in the strict adherance of Jesus' teachings:

Mathew 28:19- "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them[b] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, " [/b]

Others rather follow in the steps of the early apostles who baptised people in the name of Jesus.

Acts 19:5 - When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you[i] in the name of Jesus Christ[/i] for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


While there is so much contention about this even leading to the division of some denominations, i find no problem with the topic.

In my opinion, neither of the two Schools of thought is wrong and this is my arguement:

The father, Son and Holy spirit all answer to the name of Jesus. Notice it did not say "in the name(s) of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost, " but it said, " in the name(singular) of the father , "

The name of the father is Jesus; the name of the son is Jesus; the name of the Holy ghost is Jesus. The all answer to that all powerful name.

Colossians 2:9 - For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


Phil. 2:9 -

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

What's your opinion on this?

Great reasoning there. To be baptized in Jesus' Name is to be baptized in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

nuru:
Steps to Salvation: Read the summary at Mark 12 Vs 28 to the end of the Chapter if you beleive in THE TEACHINGS OF jESUS.

@nuru,

Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus? And how does Mark 12:28 help you towards salvation?

Only recently did I come to the discovery that there's no guarantee of salvation in Islam. Even Muhammad testified that he did not know either way what would happen to those who believed in Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus categorically made the Gospel of salavation clear, as well as give the guarantee of the fate of all who believe; and the consequences of those who do not.

Is it really the material on which the words of the Qur'an are written, or the words themselves that are really problematic for Muslims? While it is understandable that people's religious sensibilities might be affected by the hint to tissue rolls, I wonder what it would take for Muslims themselves to see that they have desecrated the name of "Allah" in worse situations.

Aside from that,

#1. Most Muslims claim that the Qur'an cannot be translated into any other language - which would make the Qur'an itself meaningless.

#2. Islamic sources themselves say that the Qur'an was written on leaves, animal bones, and other materials before they were compiled. The question is, were Muhammad's companions who did so not guilty of the same desecration of which modern Muslims now accuse non-Muslims?

@babs787,

Here's my response to your earlier request for an outline of the similarities between Moses and Jesus. First, I would like to lay out a structure for this discussion.

Most Muslim apologists strenuously arguing for Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18 hinge their convictions on just two main points :

(a) "a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee" (vs. 18) - therefore, they suppose he must be an Arab from Ishmael, since it is supposed that the Ishmaelites are brethren to the Jews;

(b) "and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them" (vs. 18) - hence, Muhammad was purported to have received Allah's undiluted word in the recitations of the Qur'an.

The fallacies behind these thoughts are self-evident. Who are the brethren of the Jews to whom Moses referred in Deut. 18:15 & 18? And did Muhammad have a similar experience as Moses to whom God spoke "face to face"? We shall be closely examining these two positions from a Biblical perspective.

The Prophet Like Unto Moses - Jesus or Muhammad?

Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18.
¹⁵The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;
unto him ye shall hearken; ¹⁸I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Three things are brought to our attention in these verses concerning the similarities:

1. the profile of the Prophet - He is to be "like unto" Moses.
2. the kinship of the Prophet - He is to emerge from within Israel ('from the midst of thee, of thy brethren')
3. the prophetic message of the Prophet - He shall speak the very Word put in His mouth.

1. The Profile of the Prophet.

Who was Moses as a prophet of God? This question is important, because nothing bears any weight if we don't know Moses as a "prophet" before we try to describe the 'Prophet' that should be like unto him.

Moses was born under very trying circumstances in which the lives of male Hebrew children were threatened by a king - Pharaoh of Egypt (Exo. 1:15-16, 22). Protected miraculously from this threat, he grew up in Egypt and sensed the calling of God to be Israel's deliverer from Egyptian bondage (Exo. 2:1-11a; Acts 7:21-23). Rejected by his fellow Hebrews, he fled for his life and went into exile in Midian, where he met and married his wife Zipporah (Exo. 2:13-21); only returning from exile after the men who sought his life had died (ch. 4:19).

Moses received his divine call as a prophet and deliverer in an encounter in mount Horeb (Exo. 3:1-10). Accompanied by his brother Aaron as his spokesman (Exo. 4:14 & 16), he went with a divine commission to encounter the incumbent and feared Pharaoh in order to bring Israel out of Egyptian bondage (ch. 5:1).

We should notice also the confirmation of his divine commission as a prophet - by powerful, miraculous signs and wonders (Ex. 3:20; 4:4, 21ff); by the power of his prophetic utterance (Exo. 4:12); by his ability to stand as mediator and intercessor on Israel's behalf (Exo. 19:17-19; Deut. 5:5); and by the glory reflected on his face (Ex. 34:29-30). As we identify the Prophet of Duet. 18, we shall have cause to see more about Moses' profile as a prophet. However, what distinguishes him from other prophets after him is Deut. 34:10-12 >> "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land, And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel."

Why do the criteria of marriage, occupation, etc. not suffcicient basis for identifying the Prophet of Deut. 18:15 & 18? For the simple reason that these were not the features mentioned in those texts; rather, He would be recognized as one who stood as a 'Prophet'. If marriage, occupation, etc. could be used as a criteria at all, then many prophets would be far more qualified than Moses. An example is the Jewish prophet Samuel - (1 Sam. 8:1-2 and 1 Chron. 6:28) who also had married and had the same number of kids as did Moses. And even non-Jewish, non-Christian and non-Islamic "prophets" who married and sired children would be able to claim that they were the expected "Prophet" instead of Muhammad or Jesus.

It is of no consequence to measure divine calling by marriage ties, occupation, etc., because the context of Deut. 18 points out that the expected One was to be a "Prophet". God didn't say that He would raise them a "family man (or a famer) like unto Moses" - and people should grow up and drop such unwitty insinuations. What sets a man apart as a 'Prophet' is his prophetic calling by God; rather than some marriage ties or occupation.


2. The Kinship of the Prophet.

We have seen earlier that Moses was an Hebrew (Ex. 2:6); hence also an Israelite. That the prophecy of Deut. 18 speaks of the Prophet 'like unto' Moses, it is important to note well that He was to emerge as an Israelite (a Jew/Hebrew); for He was to arise from within the nation of Israel ("from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" - vs. 15). They were not to look for Him from any other nation than from within their own. No Arab was appointed or annointed as either prophet, priest, or king over Israel. Every Jew understood this, so that even in the NT, twice it was reiterated that Moses' prophecy meant that the Prophet was to emerge from among the Jews (Acts 3:22-23 & 7:37).

The case has been established that the phrase "from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" points only to people within the Jewish nation, especially when one reads its context in such texts as Deut. 17:15 - 'Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.'

It is of utmost importance to substantiate my persuasion that no stranger was to be set over Israel as prophet, priest, or king by divine afflatus. Certainly, the Jews were to love and respect the strangers who dwelt among them (Exo. 22:21; Lev. 19:34 & Deut. 10:19); but such were not to assume the prophetic or priestly offices. Let's bear this out in a few citations.

Jer. 30:21 - "And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD."

That is one precise text that clearly elucidates the point of God raising only Jews as priests, prophets and kings to the Jews. In the case of the Gentile prophet Balaam, he was called a soothsayer (Josh. 13:22) and had his devotion in the 'high places of Baal' (Num. 22:41) - which is antithetical to true devotion to God (Num. 33:52).

How were strangers defined?

One of the half-brothers of Isaac was Midian (Gen. 25:1-2), from whom descended the Midianites. If Moses had counted himself as a relative in context of being one of the Midianite brethren, then he would have acknowledged it during his exile. Rather, when in the land of Midian and had his first son, he named him Gershom, "for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land" (Exo. 2:22). Nehemiah 13: 30 also makes the case for this, that no strangers who are non-Jews were appointed in the priestly or prophetic offices: "Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business."

In other words, strangers are those who are non-Jewish by birth or lineage. There is a distinction made between the house of Israel and the strangers that sojourned among them (Lev. 17:8 & 18:26).

Now all these go to show that Moses in Deut. 18 clearly meant the Jews by the clause "a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren". He never meant the Arabs; for by extension, that would have created a context for all the sons of Keturah as well (Gen. 25:2), which is not implied in the texts under review. Scripture is clear - "thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.'
" (Deut. 17:15).


3. The Prophetic Message of the Prophet

When a true prophet spoke in the Name of the LORD, the recipients knew they were hearing the very Word of God as though the prophet were only a mouthpiece articulating the voice of the LORD. This goes far beyond a mere recitation of verses (as is claimed for Muhammad with regards to the Qur'an). Biblical prophets were known to deliver prophetic messages with such distinctives as 'Thus saith the LORD' or 'The Word of the LORD that came unto. . .', etc. Such divine afflatus were communicated either in dreams, visions, or openly to the prophet (Num. 12:6); who then delivered the message to the people.

However, what sets Moses apart as a distinct prophet from others are the following words:

'And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle' - Exo. 33:11.

'My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?' - Num. 12:7-8.

Two things immediately come to our notice here: (a) God spoke directly to Moses - 'face to face' and 'mouth to mouth'; and (b) Moses saw the similitude of the LORD. These are two very important criteria that should not be missed about Moses as a distinct prophet; so that we understand that the same criteria are required of the Prophet who should be like unto Moses.

The prophetic word of Moses are marked out by the following -
(i) its potency and efficacy - not only was Moses' prophetic word fulfilled; but also they bore such power as to both deliver God's people and defeat the enemy. Further, the covenant blessings were as sure as their retribution, such that even after Moses was long dead, his prophetic statements continued to be effective in the lives of the Jews;
(ii) its durability and coherence - the prophetic Word given through Moses outlived his generation and was often quoted in the NT on many issues, particularly love and devotion to God.


Having laid out the preceding features of the distinctives of Moses, I'd like to recap and highlight the main issues before delineating the similarities between Moses and Jesus.


Highlights

In order to clearly identify the Prophet in the prophecy of Deut. 18, one has to look at three important areas: (a) His profile; (b) His kinship; (c) His prophetic message. These features would have to be maintained in view of the distinctive experiences that Moses as a prophet had with God - especially as relates to God speaking with him 'face to face'.

Second, we should understand that no Arab or non-Jew was raised as a prophet unto Israel; which is as much a great signal that the Sinaitic covenants were established unto the Jews, and through them salvation would come to the ends of the earth.

We should also remember that other issues like marriage and occupation do not weigh as criteria for the contrasts/comparison; as those are common to many prophets, rather than perculiar to them.

With the foregoing in mind, we shall be examining the similarities as well the contrasts between the prophets; and then lay the basis as to why Muhammad is not the Prophet in Deuteronomy 18.

@babs787,

I'd like to address a few misconception in your rejoinder to TayoD.

babs787:
I read there how they told you never to accept the other similarities but to hold on to the one you are laying claim to now. Why are you referring me to Greek bible?

If that were true, it would indeed be such a sad undertaking - excatly parallel to the very same thing that Muslims are many times asked to do: hold on only to what the Imams have said, and no more (even if the Imams have been proven many such times to be colossally wrong!).

If one refers you to the Greek Bible, we should be thankful for that; because it helps to read issues in their context and minimize the often stretched inferences many Muslims draw.

babs787:
You have never debunked anything with regards to the issue of brethren, stimulus gave his own opinion which is left for me to accept or to rebut. So if you are laying claim to only one similarity, too bad then. I have given you the reasons why the Arabs are the brethren of the Jews, so its left for you to accept or not.

Lord willing, before the weekend runs out I'll be offering you a contextual write-up to straighten out this convoluted idea that the Arabs are the 'brethren' referred to in Deuteronomy 18.

babs787:
Tayod, Why is it that Muhammed is really the problem of many christians?

Another way of phrasing that question would be: Why is it that JEWS and CHRISTIANS were a real problem to Muhammad, and continue to be so to most MUSLIMS today?

babs787:
Did you say that jesus is very righteous and that he never sinned? Let me ask you, what is baptism for?

Jesus never sinned - and He is both righteous and as well our righteousness. Not so many muslims have said to my hearing that Jesus sinned; but if you're one of the few who hold to that idea, could you please show me where in the Qur'an that idea is offered?

babs787:
It is not that what I gave are not in line with biblical passages but they are not in line with your own reasoning and as long they are not in line with yours, they will always be rejected. You are telling me to accept that of seeing God face to face but forgot that other areas did not make Jesus in any way similar to Moses. Let me have verses referring to Jews as being "brethren" to each other.

For fairness sake, how many times have discussants shown that your ideas of Biblical narratives are way off by many miles? You're only crying this hoo-ha now because you had hoped to clober readers into your misgivings. And how many times have Christians also challenged some of the issues of Islam and the Qur'an, and Muslims have come back disagreeing - and doing so without recourse to well-reasoned counters?

babs787:
Remember that Ishmael was blessed, his nation would be multiplied etc

Genesis 17v 20: As for Ishmael, I am heeding you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.

Jews were also blessed too as in:

Deuteronomy, chapter 4 v 6 : Observe them carefully, for thus will you give evidence of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations, who will hear of all these statutes and say, 'This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.'

ISHMAEL (from whom descended the Ishmaelites) is NOT the "brethren" of JACOB (from whom descended the Israelites/Jews). I've spelt that out before. Besides, Ishmael and Isaac were half-brothers as much as the sons of Keturah (same father Abraham; different mothers - Gen. 16:15; 17:21 and 25:1-2). At best, you could say that Ishmael was UNCLE to JACOB; and not directly a BROTHER!

babs787:
But along the line, Jesus came and said referring to the nation of the jew:

Matthew 21 v 43: Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I will wait for your interpretation of the above verse

Jesus was not referring to "the nation of the Jews" as a whole in that verse. Rather, he was referring to the obstinate and legalistic chief priests and elders of the people - you can't mix them up in context, especially if you read verses 23 and 45 of that chapter. The latter verse clearly indicated the people Jesus' speeach was directed at: "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them."

See? Another forced Islamic slant, but not effective enough to score another feather to your cap! 

babs787:
So brother, if you still do not accept that the prophecy was for Muhammed, let me have verses in the bible where ‘brethren’ were used for jews and we will continue from there.

Okay, in due course they will be served. Cheerio! 

Bobbyaf:
I couldn't agree with you more. Besides, what is holy about Thursday, Friday, Sunday, or Monday for that matter? Who declared them holy, and by whose or what authority?

If Christians cannot live holy EVERYDAY of their lives, where does the argument lead?

Bobbyaf:
As you are very much aware that there can be no eternal hell, or torment. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. It so happens that humans who chose to follow Satan will find themselves there also.

Your personal opinion is not the conclusion of the whole matter.

@abdkabir,

Once again, thank you for yours, which somehow escaped my notice earlier until my buddies pointed it out. Most of the concerns you raised have been covered in my rejoinder to drbelloim, especially that of the canonical Scriptures and the several Councils which were convened to debate their veracity.

abdkabir:
@stimulus

U will marvel @ how Faith, the Destiny of Man and the world around us fascinates me. I can tell u i've been mostly reading or finding info on religion since i wrote that post till n now.and its late already.

As regards the Nicene issue,

After reading so many things from, the council of nicea, Athanasius, Arius,Origenes, intermingling political and religious issues, et al (Many Thanks to Wikipedia). I guess it can be safe to say the councils, (Nicea et al) played a role in defining what we call the new testament today (A[i]s such, prior to cononization, there could have been ambiguity as regards the authenticity of some gospels[/i]). As you would agree with me, there were discrepancies as to which Gospel was apocryphal or not among pundits of early chistianity. A case wherein there was diverse opinion is d following:

^{Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now canonical Gospels as divinely-inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel}.

more details under the Irenaeaeus asserts divine inspiration of canon section. @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus.

When debating issues like this, please remember that the line you're looking for in all the weblinks you offered is simply not there. That line is something along the ideas that those who convened the various Councils were supposed to have been the writers of the New Testament documents! It is simply not the case at all.

The same thing could be advanced for the Council conevened for the compilation of the Qur'anic texts by the third Caliph, Uthman. He did not personally write the Qur'an; but it is no longer secret that he directly influenced what should be included and what should not appear in the present texts.

At the end of the day, the concerns both you and drbelloim have expressed can be funnelled down to just one question: Who is Jesus Christ - deity or mere human? The Qur'an denies the deity of Jesus (among many other Christian tenets); and most Muslim apologists have tried to stretch this denial by resorting to all sorts of 'textual evidences' on the internet and elsewhere. The only question I offer is: WHEN were the following verses penned - and by WHO >>

#1. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

#2. Isaiah 9:6 - 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.' (This is in reference to the Messiah/Christ, who both is the child that is born and at the same time called "The mighty God"

Did anyone in any of the Councils you named (nicea, Athanasius, Arius,Origenes) personally pen down those verses - and if so, WHO was the person that must have done so? And if you suppose that is the case, then WHEN were those verses penned - in the 4th century () or LONG BEFORE then??

These are serious questions the Muslim apologists who accuses the Qur'an denials against the Bible should seek honestly to answer. If the answers are not forth-coming, then everything else is mere noise of a marvellous sort.

abdkabir:
As regards the authorship of "John", heres an info i read:


<sup>Authorship

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view.

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20-25 contains possibly autobiographical information. Conservative scholars generally assume I (v. 25), the disciple (v. 24) and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple, v. 20) are the same person;[5][6] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[7] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that while the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[8][9]

Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[10] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[11] Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, sometimes called the Alogi, which believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic (Panarion 51.3.1-6). In corroboration with this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation) was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus.

Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[12]

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[13] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).</sup>


More details @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship


Please the info i have provided is in no way to smear christianty but to discuss the issue using a source(wikipedia) i assume is relatively partial to religious issues considering its critical and scientific stance.

First, let me say that an excellent rebuttal by shahan has been given to the above in another thread: Invitation. . .Let's Face The Facts

However, since you reposted these clips from Wikipedia for discussion, let me again offer you a few pointers to think through:

#1. In the wake of all these "scholars" propounding theories for the authorship of the Gospel of John, which of them actually correlates in their divergent views? The Wikipedia version you offered says it is 'one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic'. Some others in the referred thread above, others like Professor Stadlin believes that, 'The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school'; while another so-called (and perhaps, Muslim) scholar by the name of Yoosuf al-Khoori believes that 'John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere'.

Now, abdkabir, let me ask you directly: with all the scholarship you've perused and offered from those websites, which of them helps your case - Cerinthus; the nameless student of the Alexandrian school; or Yoosuf al-Khoori's version? Who really are these so-called 'scholars' who can't even agree among themselves; and who must be applauded as long as their theories help the Islamic propaganda against the Bible?

#2. As for Raymond E. Brown, what "initial version" did he use to arrive at his inference? If he could be taken serously, then by the same rule, we could question Muhammad himself to produce the "initial version" of the Injil that the Qur'an alluded to as being sent down by Allah to Jesus. Failing to do so will all the more make for serious comedy. Rather than make empty claims in the Qur'an, we want to see those original versions of the Torah, the Talmud, and the Injil that Muhammad once applauded in the Qur'an before later accusing the Bible of having been tampered with and corrupted.

When Muslims are asked to provide these texts, very often they resort to excuses and scoot off to irrelevant debates to this same question. It is even more pathetic that Muslims who believe that the Bible has been corrupted, would yet want to "prove" that Muhammad was prophesied in the same Bible! So, they quote texts after texts from the Bible as confirmation of their claims; and yet cannot sustain such claims when exposed to the gist of the texts they quote.

Hi again @drbelloim,

I'm sorry for having missed your rejoinder in this thread earlier until one of my buddies pointed it out to me. Here's my reply.

drbelloim:
there are no inconsistencies in what i said , u simply took me retorics for real, your error!, now i believe u know wa i meant.

It's usually the case that when the inconsistencies of Muslim apologists have been pointed out, then they quickly use fancy words to retract

drbelloim:
there is no such term as islamic guessses,

Just as there are no such terms as the many being used to gratify the same Islamic propaganda against Christianity and Judaism.

drbelloim:
this is no inference but facts, I did not invent the apocrypha or the millions of errors exitnig by comparative analysis of the gospels ( this not for this thread though) , do consider the following just in brief,

Another forced propagandist assumption - the Christian Bible does not have the Apocrypha as part of the canonical Scriptures in just the same way that not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. As for the so-called "millions of errors", we've been there before and found that the Qur'an is defenceless against its own equally multiplied errors.

drbelloim:
Consider the OT inconsistencies such as Moses describing his own death and a list of Edomite kings that lived long after his death, may be it was inspired while ha was writing the books huh? There are many contradictory texts found in the first five books. Duet 34:5 tells of Moses death, Some stories are told twice with conflicting details such as: Genesis 6:19 vs Genesis 7:2 (a different count of animals entering Noah’s ark); or Genesis 1: 25-27 vs Genesis 2: 18-19 (a different account as to order of the creation of humans and animals); or Genesis 1:27 vs. Genesis 2:18-22 (whether men and women were simultaneously created or created at different times). perhaps as you put it even Moses was not sure.

Those are not inconsistencies or errors. The passages narrating events twice have to be read in their contexts - on the one hand, an event is briefly stated; on the other hand, the same event is spelt out in detail. This is the case as with the account of the creation of man: Gen. 1:27 briefly stated the event ('God created man in his own image'); while Gen. 2:7 gives the detail of the same event ('the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground', etc.). Same is the case of the animals that went into Noah's Ark - it is briefly stated in summary in Gen. 6:19 where they went in 'two of every sort', which is the same thing as was fulfilled in Gen. 7:9 - 'There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.' What Gen. 7:2 provides is the detail of how the clean and unclean animals were to be taken into the Ark, which is not to be misconstrued by stretching that text in arrogant disregard of the other two verses.

That Moses described his own death and spoke of events, places and people long after his demise all the more confirmed his prophetic calling. However, in Islam, Muhammad neither knew what would happen beyond his death to Muslims, what their fate was, nor what he himself would face before Allah on that Day:

Quran 46 vs.9
(SHAKIR's tr.) 'Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.' [Khalil's tr. says: 'I have no idea what will happen to me or to you' which is a sob confession of one who claims to be speaking for God.

When Muhammad addressed the bereaved on the death of Uthman bin Mazun, this is what we read: "Allah's Apostle said, ‘As regards Uthman, by Allah he has died and I really wish him every good, yet, by Allah, although I am Allah's Apostle, I do not know what will be done to him.’ Um Al-Ala added, ‘By Allah I shall never attest the piety of anybody after him. And what Allah's Apostles said made me sad.’" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 48, Num. 852).

If Muhammad wasn't sure and had no prophetic insight into the certainties of his faith, what is the grounds for your argument against Moses prophetic calling which was well established?

drbelloim:
you must have heard of the doublets, Tradition says that Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, the tax collector, and the Book of John by John the Beloved. Mark was written by an associate of Peter while Luke by a traveling companion to Paul. It is felt that Mark was the first to be written in about 65 AD, followed by Luke and Matthew in 80 - 85 AD. John was written around 90 - 95 AD. The authors, however, never identify themselves and their names were later added by scribes. further, Mark was the first gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from it. now as for some of the texts in these books, no one really knows their sources so they are referred to by the Latin Quelle ( which means unknown), or simply Q. Now by the 2nd Century, the Four Gospels were circulating independently of one another: Rome had Mark, Antioch had Matthew, Athens had Luke, and Ephesus had John. The Roman patriarch Marcion was a catalyst in drawing up a list of accepted scripture. He was very anti-Jewish, however, and anything relating to Jews was edited out of his list, including the entire Old Testament. He felt that the Jewish God was different from the Christian God. The Apocrypha was written by Alexandrian Greeks (the Septuagint Manuscripts) and many Jews kept it out of their 70 AD Hebrew Bible because they were written too late and were in Greek. A consensus became imperative when Constantine commissioned to have 50 copies of Christian scripture published as a result of the Nicaene Conference in 325 AD.

It is interesting to find you've dribbled round to confirm my position earlier, that the Apocrypha are not regarded as part of the Bible - and thank goodness you have the honesty to admit that even the Jews disavowed them.

However, Marcion's work is hard to defend against the NT. The claim by anyone that the Bible is a political redaction of Marcion is false and flies in the face of internal evidence in the NT itself. (Incidentally, the case has been well established that the Qur'an today is no less the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman, who ordered all other extant copies of the Qur'an to be burnt after he produced his own edited version.) Let me share a few pointers to your Marcion complaint:

Complaint #1.
The Roman patriarch Marcion edited anything relating to the Jews out of "accepted Scripture".

That may well be. However, there are undeniable Jewish elements in both the OT and NT of the Bible. The Sinaitic Law (or Law of Moses) are still acknowledged even by the Jews, and constitute a heavy part of the Jewish Scriptures known as the Tanakh (including the Pentateuch or first five books of the OT). They are usually called the Torah (Bereshit - Genesis; Shemot -  Exodus; Va Yikra - Leviticus; BaMidbar - Numbers; and Devarim - Deuteronomy).

In the NT, besides the very Jewish flavour of the Gospels (especially Matthew and John), the book of Hebrews is uncontestably Jewish in tone. The discourses on the Old Testament (or old covenant) worship and priesthood (ch. 5 & 7), the covenants (ch. , the temple/sanctuary, the Law and the sacrifices (ch. 9 & 10) are unmistakably Jewish.

Complaint #2.
The Roman patriarch Marcion edited out "the entire Old Testament".

It's quite easy to deflate this blind and crass argument by picking up a copy of the Bible and see if the "entire Old Testament" have been edited out. Anyone who believes this sort of propaganda probably has a squeezed brain.

drbelloim:
I beileve here u arelaying emphasis on the plural, if so then understand that PLURALITY in that context has nothing to do with trinity, Alot of languages still use plural instead of singular as a sign of respect or power. its a pity this is not so in English your mother tongue

I'm not laying emphasis on just plurality or pronouns used in Gen. 1:26. The point is, that verse establishes the doctrine of the Trinity in the very first chapter of the Bible, whether or not an equivalent construct could be found in English, much less so in the Arabic of the Qur'an.

There are other chapters where the Trinity has been alluded to in the OT, even though many Jews interpret a strict [n]monism[/n] (which is not the same as monotheism]). Genesis 18 & 19 presents the rare case of the Trinity in the event of the three who appeared to Abraham. He lifted up his eyes and saw 'three men' (vs. 2) whom he addressed as 'My Lord' (vs. 3 - notice the singular 'Lord'). Then again in chapter 19, the angel of the LORD 'accepted' Lot's petition - which characteristically is language that intimates God Himself answering the prayer of Lot (vs. 21; compare this with Gen. 16:7-13 where God revealed Himself to Hagar as 'the angel of the LORD').

God is not a monism - which Muslims today mistake for [b]mono[/b]theism. He has ever revealed Himself as One God (Deut. 6:4) in the Father (Isa. 64:, the Son (Psa. 110:1; cf. Matt. 22:42-46), and the Holy Spirit (John 4:24).

drbelloim:
So the Jewish concept of monotheism is - for there are 3 that are witnessed in heaven rite? because thy wrote it as such!?

I think you have derailed on a wild tangent there. The apostle John who wrote 1 John 5:7 knew already that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a hidden truth; and the Jewish OT clearly alluded to it (the doctrine). In that one verse, John sums up in clear language what the OT taught, although it was quite a mystery for the Jews (and anyone else) to grasp - as in the challenge offered by the Lord Jesus in Matt. 22:42-46. The same John was the writer of the Gospel of John where in chapter 1 vs. 1 he stated categorically that "the Word was God." He is the same one through whom the Revelation was given, where in ch. 19:13 he wrote of the Lord Jesus that "His name is called the Word of God".

drbelloim:
As for that I think u need to explain to the audience what is the christain concept of monotheism, as for the Jewish , leave them alone as they do not believe your ways.

The Trinity is One God revealed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for the Jews, the NT was given through them; for it is written in John 4:22 that "salvation is of the Jews." This is confirmed in Rom. 3:1-2 where we are told that the oracles of God were committed unto the Jews, and not to the Arabs (compare Deut. 4:.

Even though the Jewish Scriptures allude to the Trinity, Rom. 3:3 tells us that some would not believe (compare Isa. 53:1 and Heb. 4:2)

drbelloim:
So what do the Muslims understand by that , according to you?

As given above, Islam offers monism instead of monotheism - and even so, not many Muslims can defend their idea of a monotheistic belief in the Qur'an.