₦airaland Forum

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus

Am putting a stop to it because I don't want it to generate to another issue because I have learnt that most Christians cannot debate without resorting to abuse but will like to say one or two things about your rejoinder.

If you perceived any abuses in my rejoinders (if at all), no vex - and I take them back. However, the substance of the debate should not be brushed over on perceived abuses while ignoring or scooting away from the question being debated.

babs787:
#On the contrary, shahan quite debunked most of your arguments, even if she did not refer you to many weblinks; and I could have done the same as mrmayor in the question of Jewish ceremonies respecting the rites of the dead.#

If she had debunked, it would have been the earlier questions and I have never asked her the question am asking you now. I stopped at anointing when asking her question, I have not asked her what I am asking you now.

Since you're offering me a fresh question, I take it then that my statement stands as was: she debunked your arguments.

babs787:
Like I keep saying, christians will never stop amusing me. Christians have been asking muslims same questions over and over again yet no muslims ignored or told them that they have been answered, they (muslims) have been providing the answers despite the fact that they (christians) have been re-bringing the same questions but here, the drama continues,,,,

Before you begin to applaud yourself on that (as you often do), I counter that there are many questions still left unanswered by Muslims on the Forum. An example is the question of the claim of Islam being a monotheistic religion. Muslims often allege that Christians worship three Gods; and in the midst of the discussions, Muslim apologists very quickly switch and go haywire; scooting away from the main issue, and then launching into derogatory and inflamatory remarks like "so your God died for you??"

In the wake of all this childish drama, one cannot but loudly applaud the challenges offered by a former Muslim - shahan. Against the backdrop of otiose and lazy claims by Muslims that the plurality of pronouns (WE, US, OUR) used for Allah in the Qur'an indicates 'plurality of majesty' (such as in the speeches of the Queen of England), shahan's intelligent refutation seems to have silenced those celebrated ipse dixit of Islam's disguised polytheism.

babs787:
To the issue of mrmayor, he provided the link based on my question whether jews re-bury the dead after three days and NOT on MARY COMING TO TAKE THE CORPSE.

In the link he provided, it was noted that jews do not re-bury already buried corpse. Also ladies do not partake in the burial. Also from the bible, the secret friends of Jesus had already done the anointing for jesus. So I stopped at anointing in the other thread and am asking you in this thread the reason why Mary wanted to take the body of Jesus away.

# First, Jewish ealiest beliefs included re-burying of those already buried, especially where there is a specific request for that, or where circumstances made it necessary to fulfill certain burying rites of important figures among the Jews. Such was the case of Joseph, who at first was buried in Egypt (Gen. 50:26); then after the Israelites left Egypt, he was re-buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Same could be said of King Saul and his sons, whose bones at first were buried under a tree at Jabesh (1 Sam. 31:11-13; actually, "buried Saul" - 2 Sam. 2:4; and "buried him" ); but were later recovered and re-buried by David's men at Benjamin in Zelah (2 Sam. 21:12-14).

So, yes, the Jews were known to have re-buried their dead. If anyone offers that Jews do not re-bury their dead, such a thinker is disregarding the Scriptures and playing to some fancy ideas - ideas which Muslim apologists are quick to latch unto as long as it helps their Islamic denials and propaganda.

# Second, women particpated in the funeral and burial rites of their dead (scroll to the second section titled "Which Family Members Mourn". In that link (as several other Jewish sites confirm), those who typically mourn the dead include the mother and father, son and daughter, brother and sister, (including half-brother and half-sister), and husband and wife.

# Third, your questions, though foggy, were mainly challenging the idea of Jewish burial rites involving embalming, especially on the suspicion that the Body of Jesus would have been decomposing at the time Mary went to the sepulchre (click here to read it again). Nonetheless, mrmayor's rejoinder was precisely to the point, offering that reference as proof that the Jews indeed (a) anointed their dead in certain circumstances/conditions; and (b) Mary most likely went to the sepulchre for that same purpose (see Mark 16:1).

Notice also that he pointed out the word used was "ANOINT", and not your misleading word "MASSAGE".

#Third, I really don't know why exactly Mary wanted to take the body of Jesus away. However, it is known in Biblical Jewish tradition that important figures in Jewish communities were given a re-burial as a sign of proper respect and honour, especially when such a historic figure might have bled in death.

babs787:
Common, explanation is not always too much, no muslim has ever complained or told Christians that someone has provided the answer but here comes Christian….

It's not anyone's problem if Muslims don't speak up where answers have been given. And where such answers have been provided, Christians who don't read issues with their eyes closed are responsible enough to point them out; rather than pretend the opposite. So, I really don't see why you've suddenly taken to these petty complaints about Christians being this, that or the other.

babs787:
#What is even remarkable is that honest Muslim apologists pretend that schisms don't exist in Islam; and they often present the over-bored case of pseudo-Christian cults and fringe movements as if they represent Biblical Christianity. We all know that Shiites and Shias are deeply divided over doctrine, authenticity of the Hadiths, authorities of the Muslim clerics, and interpretation of the Qur'an.#

Well, even if they are divided in doctrines, they are not divided as per the number of verses in the holy Quran, they don’t discriminate Quran and there is no Quran that has a verse missing but present in another Quran unlike the bible where you have some verses expunged in some versions. Also we have 114 chapters in the Holy Quran whereas, the Protestant are having 66 books while Catholics are having 72 etc…

Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews have never seen the Apocrypha as part of the canonical Scriptures, so you can't dribble round this with the weathered debate about Catholicism uadhering to 72 books. Even among Muslims who hold to just one Qur'an, they are not all agreed what it says in all of its 114 chapters - or why do they have so many Englsih versions saying so many different things, especially as translated by Muslims themselves? Not to mention that the divide between Muslims have led them to kill one another as in the recent Shiites against Shias in Iraq?

At the end of the day, Muslims fail to realize that the same allegations they levy against Christianity are also deep-seated in Islam.

babs787:
#Do you really stop to read rejoinders at all? You claim mrmayor left you some references to check out your doubts, but you still kept on pushing this weathered denial. Jews are known to give their dead a proper and respectful burial, even if it comes a few days after the demise occured. Check again the rejoinder posted by mrmayor.#

Very funny. I thought you have gone to the link provided by mrmayor. If you have, you would have read about the mess contained in the link about your supposed crucifixion of Jesus, everything you may be needing regarding same is there, very funny link. The link shouldn’t have been shown at all. I could remember then, babyosis and 4 get me were happy for the link being provided but never checked what it contained. For your information, the link has nothing pertaining to jews re-burying their dead. It only tells how jews bury their dead and not re-burying the already buried corpse. Did Mary want to do the re-burial for Jesus? Na real wa o.

If you can read, please simply scroll up and see my answers to the fact that Jews are well known to re-bury their dead.

babs787:
#There again, I've stated my disinterest in long denials for the sake of arguments. When the time comes, I'll be asking you to turn around and look closer home to your own Qur'an and see the denials that Muhammad gave which Muslims are too embarrassed to comment on#.

Its beginning to get bored. You can imagine when christians resort to abuse when questions are being asked yet same is being asked muslim but no muslim resort to abuse.

That's not honest; for many Muslims are known to be quite belligerent and impudent - so please try not magnifying your dishonesty.

babs787:
Hmmmmmmm. When the time comes, we will examine the unfulfilled prophesies, historical Jesus, Jesus having female breast and other issues surrounding Jesus Christ in the bible and compare with that of the Holy Quran as well as other verses in both books i.e the creation of both living and non living things, the creation of Adam, how satan deceived them, the stories of the prophets, story of Jesus etc. We wil compare both books in those areas when the time comes.

If you're going to debate issues intelligently, I might oblige you. If otherwise, you may as well look for another username for this Forum before I'm through schooling your roundabout arguments.

babs787:
#Take care, call babs any name you feel like, it is a free world

Yep, you're not the only one at the receiving end.

babs787:
Truth and Islamic propagandist denials are not the same things. And what names did I call you other than yours?#

Dont worry as we proceed, truth will unveil itself, though it has been unveiling itself but only that christians have been ignoring it due to pride,arrogance etc
You are misunderstanding me. If you can put up any argument without resorting to abuse or name calling, then it will be better because most of them that have been claiming to be tolerant have never shown it. So all am saying is that even if you decide to be calling me name or resort to insults, its ok by me just the way predecessors have been doing.

Take care.

In just about the same way, try understanding issues and people on the Forum without resorting to the usual antics that have earned you a trademark on the Forum. At least, you'd see that I do my best to deal with issues rather than circumvent them and scoot off to irrelevant excuses. Where answers are offered, one would hope that we would all be honest enough to appreciate them, rather than come back with endless infantile "questions" and denials. Try that for size, and see how things change for you.

Cheerio.

@babs787,

babs787:
Finally when they noticed that he never wanted to claim sonship of God or answer them, they now changed the question and asked him

Dude, please don't sweat it out with your reconstruction of Islamic tales. Jesus Christ actually claimed to be the Son of God. "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:36)

Not only so, the accusing and sneering crowd remembered that He said so by Himself - "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for He said, I am the Son of God." (Matt. 27:43)

Jesus Himself claimed to be the Son of God.

The expression 'Ye say that I am' (Luke 22:70), or 'Thou hast said' (Matt. 26:64) was to evidence the fact that He was pointing out to them how they had finally made the very same confession they had been avoiding up until then. It would be the same thing as saying, 'You have said it!'

He used the same expression in answering Judas earlier: 'Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said' (Matt. 26:25) - meaning, that indeed Judas had just confessed to the very thing Jesus had been warning of up until then - Judas would betray Jesus.

Notice the same expression again in His answer to Pilate: 'And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it' (Luke 23:3). Earlier at His birth, the brutal political regime under Herod had sought His death upon the announcement that He was 'born King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2). Now, what they had refused to acknowledge for over thirty years of His life on earth was being unwittingly confessed by Pilate himself - and Jesus confirmed the very statement as binding: "Thou sayest it!"

Think about it: if He were not the Son of God, why would He have openly said so Himself (John 10:36 and Matt. 27:43)? If He were not born King of the Jews, why did He not stop those who sang His praise, saying 'Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest' (Luke 19:38)?

This is why I have often appealed to you that I'm not in the least interested in your boring roundabout denials, because you often don't make any sense, babs787. Jesus clearly said He was the Son of God, and you can't dribble round that.

ishmael:
someone once asked Jesus when the world will come to an end? He answered by telling the person that He does not know the hour nor the day but His Father (God) alone knows. what does his answer tell you?

Someone once asked Jesus who He was, even going so far as to adjure Him to tell if He was the Son of God (Matt. 26:63). His answer was: I am! (Mark 14:62) What does that say to you?

Oga babs787,

babs787:
@tayo d @ stimulus

Knowledge continues till one dies. The "poor" is not the one that has no cent but the one that refuses to seek for knowledge.

You are perfectly right . I don't need to support your claim. Must we reason together? That is the more reason we have threads to thrash out issues. We need to disagree in order to agree and you christians shouldnt be "Mr. know-all" or "Mr Right" everytime issues are being addressed. You consider every other's post inferior as long its not in support of yours.

Doesn't that sound a bit rather off-key in your lyrics? The Forum, among many other things, is a place where people should be able to first reason together, before agreeing to disagree or whichever suits the posters.

Second, I don't see many Christians pretending to "know-it-all" or be right all the time. On the contrary, many non-Christian discussants have often thought that Christians are way too ignorant to debate issues. I personally don't take the view that anyone's post is "inferior"; unless they prove the point precisely. The funny thing is that most Muslim discussants typical want all other views to be panelled after the Islamic mould of thinking - which is way out of the cosmos.

babs787:
You know the truth, babs has earned many names just because he has been asking questions, refusing to accept doctrines, biblical misrepresentations etc. as being written by christians.

So if never to dance to your music is being termed "not comprehending", I prefer to remain so.

People have been both praised and lampooned for their efforts; and no one has to take anyone's views, much less yours - especially when you keep fogging issues.

By the way, this self-adulation that you're merely asking questions and refusing biblical misrepresentation is far from the flavour of your inputs. More so, since there's not much evidence of a readiness to learn in your arguments.

babs787:
Thanks for adding new feather to my cap. This calls for celebration

Take care.

Congrats on your new feathered cap - only try and be sure the cap is not covering your eyes!!

ishmael:
@stimulus
a whole respected christian like you? you mean you don't know how long Adam and Eve stayed in the Garden of Eden before they were driven out? I was relying on you oo!!

My bro.da ishmael, bragado and shakara about Bible knowledge will not help us Oo!!

I can only speak what I know; and not pretend what I don't have. All the same, please don't follow my ignorance O! Follow and rely only on Jesus!!

God bless.

TayoD:
@babs787,

While I agree with the observation that your writing skills have improved on nairaland, I must declare without doubt that your ability to comprehend what you read still leaves much to be desired.

Oh dear. .!!

I wonder again about his scooting ability, though!

@ishmael,

ishmael:
I expect christians like Stimulus to know.

My bros ishmael, honesty stimulus doesn't know that much, neither does he pretend knowledge that he doesn't have. The one thing I do know, however, is that Adam lived that long to be nine hundred and thirty years before he died (Gen. 5:5).

The question you posed is as much a blanket one that leads nowhere in the same lane as you will find other questions running. For instance, someone could as well ask, 'How long did Adam and Eve live outside the Garden?' What would be your answer to that, ishmael? Anything you and I offer as answers to those two questions would be strictly our personal opinions and nothing more - unless we can categorically prove such answers with texts from the Bible.

The essential thing for me is that Adam and Eve were in the Garden¹, ate from the tree of which they were expressly forbidden², were subsequently driven out³; but a promise of redemption made in reference to the Fall⁴.

That prophecy has been fulfilled in Christ⁵, and by God's grace millions (including me) have believed on Him to the saving of the soul⁶, and the obtaining of a far more eternal weight of glory⁷.

Shalom.

Notes
1. Gen. 3:8
2. Gen. 2:17 and 3:6
3. Gen. 3:24
4. Gen. 3:15
5. Gal. 4:4
6. Heb. 10:39
7. 2 Cor. 4:17

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus @davidylan

Funny how you people interprete the bible to suit yourselves. I have no problem with that, its your bible, so its your problem. They will twist the bible to be in their favour, funny set of people. I never even expected that clear statement from Paul of all people but here, the disciples of paul (nairaland christians) twisting the bible to suit their taste.

This is typically the cry that trails such misguided attempts to force Islamic reasoning into Biblical narratives. Paul's clear statements should be read in their clear contexts, and that's what my posts are all about. Read them carefully.

ishmael:
@stimulus
You are only arguing as a christian, i don't think you know the truth.

How else have you been arguing - or did you not say that you're a Christian? If you know the truth, why has it been difficult for you to share the same?

babs787:
Ok. You said that I am mixing things up. If one can't be a servant of sin, what of one being servant of God as used below:

v 22: but now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Romans 6:22 - "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

babs787:
What do you have to say to the above?

Precisely what it says.

babs787:
Also slave of sin and slave of righteousness being used refer to Satan and God respectively. By being slave of sin, you are also slave of Satan and by being slave of righteousness, you have become slave of God as used above.

Oga, wrong, and dead wrong! In Romans, Paul does not use SIN as a referral to Satan. An example, if I transliterate your suggestion that sin refers to Satan, would you not be rather confused to read the following verses in your own slant this way -

Rom. 4:8 - "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin Satan."

Rom. 5:21 - "That as sin Satan hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness God unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Rom. 6:2 - "God Righteousness forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin Satan, live any longer therein?"

Rom. 6:12 - "Let not sin Satan therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."

How could you infer what you neither understand nor even know at all?

babs787:
Also the below verse gives us better understanding that, whoever you receive instruction from, is your master and you are his slave

Romans 6 v 16: know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, nor of obedience unto righteousness.

Oh, I see now how people often infer that you twist words around. Sorry, but that verse does not intimate your claim that "whoever you receive instruction from". A person may be yielded to sinful habits - does that mean that the sinful habit is giving such a person "instruction"??

babs787:
17: but God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you.

v 18: Being then made free from sin, ye became the servant of righteousness.

v 20 : When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

As above, Paul does not use sin and righteouness to refer to Satan and God respectively; nor should you force-fit that drama in issues you don't understand.

@davidylan,

davidylan:
babs787,

you are mixing up issues here. Paul was talking CLEARLY about being a "servant" either to sin unto death or to righteousness unto life.
The word "servant" here is used hypothetically to convey a message. How can you be a literal servant to sin? Is sin a living being?

Any intelligent reader by now should know that babs787 dribbles round issues and scoots quickly away from his own argument when faced with his inconsistencies.


@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus

Very funny translation of the word ' slave'.

Let me start with a verse

Romans 6 v 16: know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, nor of obedience unto righteousness

What is your understanding of the verse that you are the servant of whom you yield yourself to? A very clear statement made by Paul. Are you yielding to God. So if you are yielding to God, what are you then as said by paul in the above verse.


A very funny translation. Honestly, christians will never stop amusing me

Well, your attention has been quickly called back to the main issue you raised. The point was not about the so-called "funny translation" - because there are as many funny translations of the Qur'an, as I've attempted to offer above in a single verse.

However, the point is that no one "gains" eternal life by being a "slave" - and I've quoted that line in yours specifically:

babs787:
Do you ever read your bible? Havent you read in the book of Romans where Paul said that you will gain eternal life by being a slave?

. . . and my rebuttal was that the Bible does not teach your assertion. Eternal life is a GIFT of God by faith through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23). Whether or not you understand the Biblical meaning in context of servant/slave is another thing entirely. The point is that one who is truly saved will be yielded to "serve" God in a renewed mind (Rom. 12:1-2).

@babs787,

babs787:
Christians will always amuse me. Where have you been when your folks have been denying the prophethood of Muhammed, calling him all sort of names? You didnt say anything on that but deem it fit to come out and talk on my denials to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If you want to say am denying the crucifixion, yes you are right because there was no crucifixion and I have been giving you verses that go against the crucifixion and have been asking questions on the said crucifixtion.

No vex again. I wish my presence was already registered earlier on. However, I could not have been here to join in the discourse as only recently did I stumble across this Forum while doing a search on the subject of eternal judgement. As for your denials, it is hardly surprising that you're pedantically pushing the tenet of Islam by rote, rather than by an honest consideration of the Biblical texts you've been quoting out of contexts.

babs787:
Well, point of correction, Shahan never produced any rebuttal to my claim, it was only Mrmayor that provided some links to the topic and I even stopped at anointing.

On the contrary, shahan quite debunked most of your arguments, even if she did not refer you to many weblinks; and I could have done the same as mrmayor in the question of Jewish ceremonies respecting the rites of the dead.

babs787:
When it comes to issue affecting the bible, you will always give excuse as not to involve yourself in any debate but if it comes to Islam, you will always be seen at the front. It is this same bible that you are reading the Jehovah witness are reading too, both of you claiming to have written according to the original manuscript, but here you are telling me that he was crucified while witnesses are saying no, he was tied to a stake!!! So its not only Muslims but christians too have been denying same.

I've always debated issues on any front - Islam and Christianity, quoting from the revered Scriptures of both faiths to the point. My declining to participate in endless roundabout debates that have already been thrashed in other threads is not to be misconstrued as excuses.

What is even remarkable is that honest Muslim apologists pretend that schisms don't exist in Islam; and they often present the over-bored case of pseudo-Christian cults and fringe movements as if they represent Biblical Christianity. We all know that Shiites and Shias are deeply divided over doctrine, authenticity of the Hadiths, authorities of the Muslim clerics, and interpretation of the Qur'an.

I'm not a JW; and evangelical Christians have time and again challenged JW doctrines and their spurious version of the Bible. No scholar from the JW camp has eruditely defended what the JW teach.

babs787:
In continuation, it is in the bible I found out that 'he' is being used in place of 'it' for the dead.

John 20 v 15: sir, if you have taken HIM, hence, tell me, where you have laid HIM, , ,, so that I might take HIM away.

brother, do you think she is looking for a corpse, for 'it' or for a living person 'he'?

And further, she wants to know as to 'where have you laid him' and not where have you buried it.

It is not surprising that Islam has no respect for the dead. If Muhammad is dead, as surely as he is, why this double game of referring to the dead Arab prophet as "he", instead of calling Muhammad an "it"? In the same vein, I don't read or hear Muslims refer to the dead Muhammad as an "it" in reference to his burial. Or what is the big deal on such a mute issue?

In any case, Mary wasn't looking for a piece of article; rather, she was looking for HIM - as surely as John 20:15 puts it.

babs787:
'so that I might take him away'.

To where? What could she want to do with a buried decomposing body?

Do you really stop to read rejoinders at all? You claim mrmayor left you some references to check out your doubts, but you still kept on pushing this weathered denial. Jews are known to give their dead a proper and respectful burial, even if it comes a few days after the demise occured. Check again the rejoinder posted by mrmayor.

babs787:
It will never make sense to you because it has to do with the foundation of your faith. Dont worry, I wonder what you will say when we get to the sign of Jonah, 'three days and three nights in the belly of fish', we will know if jesus really spent 3 days and three nights. Remember he was buried on Friday night and rose on Sunday morning as said by christians. But I will shed more light on that by the time we get there if you still remain adamant that he died for you.

There again, I've stated my disinterest in long denials for the sake of arguments. When the time comes, I'll be asking you to turn around and look closer home to your own Qur'an and see the denials that Muhammad gave which Muslims are too embarrassed to comment on.

babs787:
We will get to the root as we proceed. Truth can never be hidden

Take care, call babs any name you feel like, it is a free world

Truth and Islamic propagandist denials are not the same things. And what names did I call you other than yours?

Cheers.

@babs787,

Right, this was your earlier statement:

babs787:
Do you ever read your bible? Havent you read in the book of Romans where Paul said that you will gain eternal life by being a slave?

Now, in all the references you gave, Paul did not say that anyone will gain etrnal life by being a slave. If that were the case, why have most Muslim apologists been accusing him of all sorts of derogatory names under the sun? Further, the Muslim concept of 'slave' is quite a different thing than is understood in Christianity or Judaism. That is the point in 2 Corinthians and Revelations that you referenced.

The relationship that a Christian has with God is not predicated on being a 'slave' or 'servant'. Rather, it is based on the faith of the believer in in Jesus Christ: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Rom. 10:9-10).

However, the result of someone's being saved is manifested in his walk after he or she confesses the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That is what Rom. 6:16-23 posits - "ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. . . but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Eternal life is a gift of God through grace in Christ, not something anyone gains as a reward for hardwork. That is the consistent theme of Romans. This is the difference -

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. . . And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." (Rom. 4:4 and 11:6).

We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The believer in Christ is not rewarded by being a "slave" of God; but by simply faith in the redemption freely provided in the Son of God.

@lafile,

lafile:
@ Backslider
You quoted Hank Hanegraaff in one of your post. However to me, he seems to be a person who critisizes every preacher who get any form of popular following. I have never read him say anything good about anybody. But then again i havent read all he has written.

I very much doubt your statement and summations about Hank Hanegraaff. He critiques most preachers who don't have enough spine to defend their causes in the wake of serious questions with which he challenges them. But there again, he has also commended some other teachers of the Word, even though I may not really agree with some of the things being taught by those other teachers.

lafile:
And I don't see anything wrong with a preacher being rich. its the extravagance and popsatr lifestyle that i don't like. the bible teaches moderation.

It's hard to find a good number of rich pastors and proponents of the W-O-F Prosperity Gospel who don't live in extravagance and popstar lifestyle. One wonders what place the Lordship of Jesus Christ has in their ministries; and what they make of holiness. But there again, I truly believe that God blesses His children according to His riches in glory. The point of reference, however, should not be (and has not been) that materialism takes center stage in the saving Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus

This is what we have in the verse you quoted

Quran 2 v 138; [Our Sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (religion) of Allah (Islam) and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allah's? And we are His worshipper.

Yep, so you say. But you can't blame me much as I was not previously a Muslim.

However, these are the following translations of the same verse of Qur'an 2 vs. 138 (with your preferred tr. given first):

Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan: (Our Sibghah (religion) is) the Sibghah (Religion) of Allah (Islam) and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allahs? And we are His worshippers. (Tafsir Ibn Katheer.)

YUSUFALI: (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.

PICKTHAL: (We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.

SHAKIR: (Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising? and Him do we serve.

MUNSHEY: (Imbue) the hue (and the halo) of Allah! What better shade of color to acquire than that of Allah? We are His sincere devotees!

SHERALI: Say, `We have adopted the religion of ALLAH; and who is better than ALLAH in teaching religion, and him alone do we worship.

SALE[/b]The [b]baptism of God have we received, and who it better than God to baptize? Him do we worship.

PALMER: The dye of God! and who is better than God at dyeing? and we are worshippers of Him.

KHALIFA: Such is GOD's system, and whose system is better than GOD's? "Him alone we worship."

RODWELL: Islam is the Baptism of God, and who is better to baptise than God? And Him do we serve.

ARBERRY: the baptism of God; and who is there that baptizes fairer than God? Him we are serving.

Again, me I no know Arabic, nor am I a scholar in Islamic literature. I'm just letting those who claim they understand enough as translators to do all the talking.

babs787:
Do you ever read your bible? Havent you read in the book of Romans where Paul said that you will gain eternal life by being a slave?

I'm interested in reading the text in Romans where Paul stated it exactly as you did.

Shalom.

babs787:
I like this stimulus guy, he reminds me of Shahan, one of my christian friends here on nairaland

. . . and I like this babs787 guy - even though we may engage in very spirited debates and yab each other, he still manages in the end to remind me that we're human beings afterall!

@drbelloim,

drbelloim:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39929.0.html#msg1010612

[b]The cross has become associated with Christianity. It was not, however, an early Christian symbol and, indeed, the Sabbath-keeping Churches have traditionally been iconoclastic and have abhorred the use of the cross symbol as pagan. Indeed, some of the Sabbath-keeping Christians have been martyred for their opposition to the use of crosses in Christian symbolism. The Vandals were iconoclastic Subordinationists who destroyed the idols revered in Greece and Rome.


The Paulicians were iconoclasts as were all the Sabbatati who were associated with or descended from them.

The Paulicians always objected to their rivals worship of the Cross (Armenian, Chazus); therefore the term Chazitzarii, Chazinzarians (Staurolatræ) seems to denote no small sect, but the Established Church of Armenia as viewed by the Paulicians (Whitley ERE, art. Sects, p. 319).


This iconoclastic sentiment went with the Sabbatati throughout Europe. Peter of Bruys taught for some twenty years in the south of France against the excesses of the clergy, and specifically against the use of the cross. The Church authorities wrote against the practice thus:

In your parts the people are re-baptized, the churches profaned, the altars overthrown, crosses burned; on the very day of our Lord’s passion meat is publicly eaten, priests are scourged, monks imprisoned and compelled by terrors and tortures to marry (Whitley, ibid., p. 321; cf. A H Newman Manual of Church History, Philadelphia, 1900, 1. 560).


This prohibition against crosses (as well as the practice of adult baptism) continues in Sabbath-keeping Churches of God to the present. The cross symbol is most ancient and has a number of mystical meanings.[/b]

The Cross has been denied, not only by cultic pseudo-Christian groups, but also by Muhammad who expressed disdain in any and everything expressing the thought of the Crucifixion. It is too much of a bitter pill for them to swallow, and a constant reminder of the fact that they cannot find salvation in their systems nor guarantee themselves of any means of being saved.

Regardless, the Lord Jesus Christ specifically spoke of the cross (Luke 9:23 & 14:27) and His crucifixion (Matt. 20:19). He expounded thereto that His death and resurrection were the basis of redemption and true salvation: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45). So that no one could mistake the graphic language of the crucifixion, Jesus described it this way: 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up' (John 3:14).

You will find abundant testimonies to the veracity of Jesus' death and resurrection in the NT; but quoting theories that deny them is neither scholarly nor honest. One could do exactly the same thing with the Qur'an and take Muhammad to the cleaners for his acclaimed adventures, which by Biblical standards classes him as a false prophet (Deut. 18:20 & 22).

@batu,

buluti:
@ babs787 is this supposed to be a joke. At the last count there was a thread on the teacher in Gombe that no muslim has ventured to go near, "people preach what they can't defend" oh referring to yourself , are you , You should be hiding in here, such effrontary , Gosh

No matter how hard you guys ask people like babs787 to defend what they preach, you won't see them anywhere. When they do show up, it is only to make very abstract statements that are denials at best.



@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus

Funny how you people preach what you can't defend.

You have been saying that Jesus was killed and crucified and still saying it. The thread 'was jesus crucified' is on and I have not been seeing your input there. I need your input to the questions or better still the issue can be addressed here depending on how you want it.

We will also shed light on the only sign of Jonah as given by Jesus.

Also, we will know if really jesus rose on the third day and fulfilled the prophecy of Jonah.

Take care.

No vex, but I've indeed read the other thread about your claims and arguments (rather, denials) about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ; and I'm quite satisfied with the rebuttal by several, especially shahan. What you keep doing is making denial after denial on some fancy twisting of words which you find difficult to assimilate; and that's not my problem. I could as well serve you denial after denial against Muhammad and his acclaimed adventure; but intellectuals don't stoop that low. There's nothing new you're likely to reharsh here that has not been laid to rest; so I'm not in the least interested in that boring game you trump up like a recurring decimal.

The Bible states that Jesus was both crucified and rose again from the dead, regardless the denials of Muhammad in the Qur'an.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
@stimulus

And the Bible now told you that ishmael and his descendants did not worship God, abi?? Quote your Bible for me, probably i don't have that verse in my own Bible.

Allah is an Arabic word as we all know, while Jehovah is Hebrew. Is God a Hebrew word??

I have said repeatedly and I hope your don't have wax in your eyes:

"As soon as you adduce texts for the personal devotion of Ishmael towards Jehovah God, then I will spell out the rest for you of the sort of man he was."

And if you really don't have a text for your dribbling assertions, then:

". . .you are not obliged to proffer any answers since you have no texts ready to your defence. Hence, you may retract on your assertions until otherwise when you can present something more to the point."

Just be man enough to take up my challenge, and you will read the real stuff that will lay your drivel to rest.

Cheers.

babyosisi:
what is the gospel of greed?

I don't suppose you're deliberately pretending you don't know what the Gospel of greed is all about. Let me make it simpler for you:

Acts 20:33 - "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel."

You tell me if Juanita Bynum's ministry has not contradicted that principle in any way.

@drbelloim,

It's pretty simple to point out your inconsistencies:

drbelloim:
No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

. . . then:

drbelloim:
I am in no way intending to suggest in any way that the Jews indeed believed in the NT, they wrote it perhap ,  probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe, as no one relly know who wrote the biblical text as we have it today) but for sure the Jews do not believe in it.

This is classic Islamic guesses pandered as 'apologetics'. You're not even sure which is which, and then you had to betray your weak premise with "perhap ,  probarbly yes, ( or so we are made to believe. . ." So, your propaganda needs a bit more polish to make it shine; but so far it hasn't worked in your favour.

Besides, it is clear that your inference of "no one relly know who wrote the biblical text" is simply a denial. The Gospels are named after the authors; and because this is embarrasing for Muslims to admit, they push the idea that no one could be certain of the authors of the NT.

drbelloim:
the Jews explicitly believe in MONOTHEISM, just as the muslims, unlike the trinitarians who fell into the The Filioque controversy. christianity in no way follows the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled. further more it has been reported to be an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian. Father is greater than he is nullifies it all.

The very first chapter of Genesis was not written by Tertullian, and there we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (ch. 1:26). The Jewish concept of monotheism may be somewhat different from what many people interprete it to be. What is even more to the point is that Muslim monotheism is very different from that of Christian and Judaic understanding. At best, the monotheism in Islam is NOT strictly what many Muslims are made to believe.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
@stimulus

I dey with on the Jews/New Testament one.

Heres some info on the Nicene ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene

Thanks for the link. I just wonder that when people make reference to the Nicene Creed/Council as a bastion against the Christian doctrine of deity of Jesus Christ, they often forget that no one in that 4th century Council wrote any part of the 1st Century NT. John 1:1 was penned by the apostle John long before the Nicene Council was convened.

drbelloim:
Madam Syrup i think you need to know more about the nicene creed before you start talking

Wetin be the nicene creed that you hardly know yourself?

drbelloim:
No wonder the Jews believe in the new testaments that they wrote for you ,

See how you're falling over yourself. If the Jews believe in the NT, how do you explain the fact that they didn't all convert to Christianity wholesale?

babyosisi:
Thanks for the scriptures but that was not necessary.

And why not?

babyosisi:
What do you accuse Juanita Bynum of?
I have read the copied texts by backslider
What are your own issues with her?

She is one of those offering a "gospel" of greed.

babyosisi:
backslider and stimulus,I still call you brethren although I marvel at your posts.
Please do not join the world to ridicule Christians and preachers.
Calling someone a snake oil salesman is your judgement which you may be entitled to but those are harsh words for someone you cannot lay any blame on.
And who are you to judge?
Please let us have our words seasoned.

Leave the preachers alone people,especially those you know little about who have not harmed anyone.
Let their God judge them.
Let us not assume the place of the devil.

@babyosisi,

Snakeoil salesmanship or any other appellation may be harsh; but I refute the idea that people who query the duplicity of many so-called ministers are therefore necessarily joining the world to ridicule Christians and preachers.

If any so-called preacher is bringing ridicule to the Gospel and the integrity of the Christian testimony, what should other Christians do? Should we sit passively and pretend these issues are non-existent?

If "ministers" arise in our day and present a counterfeit 'Gospel' of greed, what are believers to do - sit idly and hope that people will not notice?

This is why I sometimes refrain from offering personal opinions and rather challenge others: WHAT should believers do in the face of these very real gangrene in the collective Body of Christ? Since people who are afraid to call a spade for what it is would rather sit back, here's what I offer:

#1.  'Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear' - 1 Tim. 5:20.

#2. Follow the example of trusted servants of Christ -  'For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel[/color]. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me' - Act 20:27-34.

#3. All who attempt to make merchandise of Christian believers are to be exposed - 'And many shall follow their pernicious ways; [color=#770077]by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not' - 2 Pet. 2:2-3.

It is true that God is the Judge of everyman. Yet, when we see people who defame the ministry of God's Word, what should believers do? I'm not one to take the passive position of pretending that we should "just leave them alone" - for that is contrary to the persuasion of Godliness.

Many Christians are quick to sit down and point out the faults and fallacy of Islam and Muhammad; but we are too embarrassed to face the endodermic cancer in Christendom. We as Christians should be responsible enough to deal with issues within the Christian camp as much as we are eager to lambast others outside Christianity.

Lev. 5:1 - 'And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.'

I Cor. 5:12 - 'For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?' (ESV)

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" - Jude 3.

This may not go down well with many sympathisers of such ministries; but I pray that we all may have the grace to unashamedly and boldly deal with these issues in our faith - only then would it make sense to engage in apologetics with non-Christians.

Shalom.

Jesus was crucified; and not only so, but He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

When we think theologically, one has to ask why the message of the Cross is an offence to Islam. Muhammad dreaded anything that reminded him about the Cross; and is it any wonder that one of his prophecies is that Jesus will come again and destroy all symbolisms of the Cross and those who believe in the crucifiction?

donnie:
I am not saying these men have no sin, what i am saying is that yours isn't the Spirit of Christ but of the anti-christ! Resist him and let him let go of you!

@donnie, how would you have known that these men have sin? And how would you rather deal with their sins?

goodguy:
<offtopic>

Just came in to say this:

Though no one has directly said anything regarding that, I am here to admit that I actually mistake you for shahan atimes after reading your posts, and sometimes have to scroll up (if it's a long post) to check the username again just to confirm. The only difference I see is that you do not use as many colours in your posts as shahan and syrup. But as for your sentence construction and expression, even in pidgin (like the one in the quote), you two sound almost alike. And I must confess also that your posts have been inspiring and worth the while. Keep it up bro, and may the Lord be with you always. God bless.

</offtopic>

Ride on guys!

Mission accomplished! When I came on the Forum, I marvelled that a female was holding forte, and my chauvinistic ego was dented! So, babs787. . . count your candles until your turn reach!!


Meanwhile @mimi4eva: thanks for posting those rejoinders - well appreciated. Links:

http://answering-islam.org/Resources/Morey/quran.html

http://kcm.co/Egypt/%EC%9D%B4%EC%8A%AC%EB%9E%8C/quran.htm

Cheers.

misright:
Guys, am a christian and a Baptist specified. Dont misquote me for what Stimulus thinks.

I wasn't thinking anything about you other than what you claimed of yourself. The reference to Baptist-Muslim was not from or about you, as you're not the pally who intimated me about it. So relax.

That is why I feel so sorry for Gaddafi - ever so confused.

On the one hand, denying the Crucifixion, he knew nothing better than to base his arguments on the Koran, stating the following: "Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas."

Then on the other hand, he seriously believes that: "Libya has turned its back on the Arabs , Libya is an African nation. As for Arabs, may God keep them happy and far away."

Besides the bigotry against his own people the Arabs, would anyone fail to notice how confused is Gaddafi? If he feels that Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, what sense was he making in turning his back on the Arabs? Which is highly suggestive that Gaddafi is neither here nor there. Just think if he was living in the days of Muhammad and making the statement that "Libya has turned its back on the Arabs."

@batu,

batu:
Are you guys joking or serious? Baptist Muslim ke? Very soon we'll hear of born-again muslims speaking in the holy ghost.

My bros, no be joke O! My pally thrashed me left-right-and-center with his "proof" of the Baptist-Muslims, which he termed a pure religious movement, promoters of the real essence of peace, blah-blah-blah.

Wonders of it is that this morning, he invited me to one of their 'worship services'. A quick glance at him revealed his tight clutch of the Bible and the Qur'an. Out of curiosity, I almost obliged him - just to be sure he wasn't joking; but then I changed my mind and went to church instead. Fine and intelligent chap he is, though - but when I asked him about the Cross, offered that would be another discussion. Keep you posted; though I've given up searching this movement on Google.


@davidylan,

davidylan:
It is important to note that majority of muslims here quote the bible 99% of the time rather than the quran!

Well, we really don't mind as long as they understand what they're quoting. That is why the idea that Deut. 18 was about the prophet of Islam cannot be substantiated by any thinking Muslim mind.

@drixie,

This is not about starting another chain of argument or debate. There's no reason why I should want to drop a book - whether as an infant or an adult. And there's just no plausible reason for an adult to cane a child in the name of "explaining" anything with a lie.