@deenmb,

The basic fact is that Muhammad was not sent as a prophet of the God revealed in the Biblical faiths.

deenmb:

Now who was Abraham's only son?

What verse of the Bible did you draw that from; and what were you driving at?

deenmb:

2. God talked to Moses about the coming of prophet
from the Arabs.

In Deuteronomy 18:18
"I will send them a prophet like you from their own
people, I will tell him what to say and he will tell
the people everything I command"

Who are them? Ans: Arabs Moses is from the descendants
of Isaac.

"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."

In the Bible, there is no mention of a prophet "from the Arabs" as you suggested. Isaac was not an Arab. The phrase "from among their brethren" indicates the Jews - for these were the people referred to when Moses was being addressed in Deut.18:18.

deenmb:

Who is the prophet from Arabs? ans: Muhammad

True. But even then, an Arab prophet was never mentioned in the Bible.

deenmb:

What are the words of God he came with? ans: Quran

Not one time did Muhammad ever hear God speak to him; and in that sense he does not fit the description of Deut. 18:18. Moses heard God speak to him "face to face" (Exo. 33:11); and the prophet that was to come should be like unto Moses. Since Muhammad did not hear God speak to him at anytime, that is one of the many things that disqualify him as the Deut.18:18 prophet.

deenmb:

If there is any other prophet apart from Muhammad that
fits this, please mention him.

Every other prophet that came after Moses knew that Deut.18:18 pointed to Someone else; and the prophecies that followed revealed that none other was being expected than the Messiah. When the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament, Deut. 18:18 was fulfilled. There is no other prophet that has been seen to fulfill the many prophecies of the OT in every detail about the Messiah than Jesus Himself.

deenmb:

To prove this, after Moses came John the baptist.

Wrong. After Moses came Joshua.
"Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister. . .  And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go." (Joshua 1: vs.1 & 16)

deenmb:

In John 1:19-21
"Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent
priest and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are
you?" He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed,
"I am not the Christ." And they asked him "what then?
are you Elijah?" he said "I am not". Are you the
Prophet?" And he answered "NO" "

Now who is the prophet? ans: It is that prophet
mentioned to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. And it is
Muhammad.

If you truly believe in John's Gospel, then be honest enough to see who John the Baptist was focuing on:

John 1:25-30 - "And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

You can see that John did not speak at all of Muhammad. Rather, his testimony and ministry were focused on Jesus.

deenmb:

After John came the Christ

In Matthew 17:10-13
"And his disciples asked him, saying "Why then do the
scribes say that Elijah must come first?" Jesus
answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming
first and he will restore all things. "But I say to
you that Elijah has come already, and they did not
know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise
the son of Man is also about to suffer at their
hands." Then the disciples understood that he spoke to
them of John the baptist."

Here we can confirm the answers given to Jews by John
the baptist, saying he is not the Christ, nor Elijah
but he spoke with the voice of Elijah. One question
remains "The prophet" this is the same person Jesus
described as the son of man (Muhammad) pbuh.

Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus speak of Muhammad. Whenever He spoke of the "Son of Man", it was always in reference to Himself. Besides, no serious Muslim has ever interpreted Jesus words of "Son of man" to mean Muhammad.

If Jesus meant that Muhammad was the "Son of Man" in His teaching, then it is only sensible to ask if Muhammad ever did the works of the "Son of man."

#1. Did Muhammad have the power to forgive sins and heal people? (Matt. 9:6-7)
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house"

#2. Was Muhammad dead for three days and nights? (Matt. 12:40)
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

#3. Was Muhammad ever called "the Lord of the Sabbath day" in the Qur'an? (Matt. 12:
"For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."

#4. Was Muhammad the same as Jesus? (Matt. 16:13)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

#5. Was Muhammad ever crucified? (Matt. 26:2)
"Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."

You can see in all these and more that when Jesus spoke of 'the Son of man', He meant Himself, and not Muhammad.

deenmb:

3. Jesus mentioned to his people the coming
of him.

In John 16:7-8
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your
advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the
helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will
send him to you." "And when he has come, He will
convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment."

And also in John 16:12-14
"I still have many things to say to you, but you
cannot bear them now." "However, when He, the spirit
of truth , has come, He will guide you into all the
truth; for He will not speak on his own authority, but
whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you
things to come" "He will glorify me, for He will take
of what is mine and declare it to you."

The One Jesus spoke about in John 16 is the Holy Spirit; and not an unholy sinner called Muhammad. The closest to anything about Muhammad spoken of in John 16 is in verse 2: "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." Killing Jews and Christians is one of the tenets of Islam; and Muhammad actually fulfilled that role by thinking he was doing God service by killing Jews and Christians.

Question: what is "holy" about Muhammad - who himself confessed that he was such a sinner to have turned in repentance to "Allah" over seventy times in a day? What is "holy" about Muhammad who could not convince himself of sin before seeking to convince others of the same?

deenmb:

The big question is who is He Muslims will say
without hesitation that it is Muhammad, because he
only speaks what he hears through the eternal message
"The Quran" and he has told us things that will
happen. "All that is happening in this world has been
mentioned in the Quran." Check and confirm.
Christians will tell you its The Holy Spirit, what
are the proofs?

In the first place, Muhammad did not now who the Holy Spirit is - and he confused the Spirit for the angel Gabriel.

Secondly, the Word of God is not subject to "abrogation" - but the Qur'an itself confirms that the "Allah" preached by Muhammad was a being who abrogated verses in the Qur'an.

Third, Muslims have not been able to articulate a single prophecy in the Qur'an that was fulfilled in plainly a manner as those revealed in the Bible.

Therefore, for Muslims to think that Muhammad was the prophet in Deut.18:18 is dishonest. Jesus plainly spoke about who that prophecy was about in John 5:46 -  "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." There is the clear statement that Jesus never referred to Muhammad at all. Rather, Moses wrote about the Messiah - Jesus Christ.

deenmb:

Another thing is that this 'person' whom Jesus
prophesied will come after him is called in the
original Bible 'Parqaleeta". This word was deleted by
later interpreters and translators and changed atimes
to 'Spirit of truth' and at other times to 'Comforter'
and sometimes to 'Holy Spirit'. The original word is
Greek and its meaning is 'one whom people praise
exceedingly'. The sense of the word is applicable to
the word 'Muhammad" in Arabic.

First, what correlation you see between Arabic and Greek is beyond anyone! Arabic is as far removed from Greek as the East is from the West!

Second, there is no word as "Parqaleeta" in Greek. Whoever devised that word should explain how they came about it when in fact the Greeks never had such a word in their language.

The word variously translated as Comforter (John 14:16) and Advocate (I John 2:1) in the NT from the Greek is "paraklētos" [Gk. παράκλητος]. It simply means an intercessor for comfort and points to the Holy Spirit in John's Gospel.

deenmb:

4. The Quran mentioned in the Bible.

In Revelation 14:6-7
"Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of
heaven, having the evalasting gospel to preach to
those who dwell on the earth- to every nation, tribe,
tongue and people. Saying with a loud voice. "Fear God
and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgement
has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth,
the sea and springs of water."

What is that everlasting gospel that is preached to
every nation, every tribe and every tongue? Ans: Quran
If you argue my answer then provide yours. The Bible
is not an everlasting gospel, because Jesus mentioned
he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

The salvation Jesus offered was to the entire world. He said so Himself in that very popular verse in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Again, the Revelation 14:6-7 passage you quoted does not refer to the Qur'an. Rather, Jesus Himself said that His Gospel is to all the world - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matt. 24:14).

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19).

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

deenmb:

5. Lastly, lets look at

Isaiah 29:12
"And the book was delivered to him that is not
learned, saying Read this, I pray thee, and he said I
am not learned".

Ask any Muslim who that is and what book was delivered
to him and he gives you a straight answer that it is
Muhammad (pbuh) and the book is The Holy Quran. But
ask a Christian and you get no answer.
This is a big challenge to Christians, who is the
person and what was the Book

This definitely sounds like babs787!
With regards to Isaiah 29:12, please see the thread The Reason For So Much Anti-Christianity where a Christian answer has been given already!

deenmb:

Brothers and sisters lets open our eyes and see the
truth.

There are so many other things we can prove from the
Bible; Things like Jesus not the son of God, There is
only one God. Even pilgrimage that muslims go to Mecca
is there in the Bible.

Most of these other things have been debunked already! But it would be interesting to see your theory on Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in the Bible - especially the Bible verse that mentions the black stone in the "Kaaba!"

deenmb:

Remember everything I mentioned here are based on
facts in the Bible and none was quoted from the Holy
Quran. Not that the Quran did not mention them , but
because Bible is the Book Cristian's believe in and
use.

Notice also that I used only Bible verses to debunk your claims.

deenmb:

Even though, the original Bible has been
adultrated in many ways.

Besides the debate about the abrogation and political redaction of the Qur'an, please tell us what the "original Bible" says in John 1:1, Mark 1:1, and Isaiah 9:6.

deenmb:

You find so many errors in
the Bible used today, but there is still enough to
prove the coming of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the
Holy Quran.

It's easy to see Muhammad in the Bible and the Scriptures of other religions by inserting words that are not in the texts. This is how the Qur'an has been translated, and Muslims themselves do not trust any translation of the Qur'an into another language!

deenmb:

If there is any contradiction to what I mention here,
please don't hesitate to point it out.

May God guide us all. Ameen

Read through again and see that your claims are empty.

jagunlabi:

That's the logic of a pervert.
Lies don't always take lives,muders do.

@jagunlabi,
It is rather perverse to make light of lying under a logic that murders are worse.

Seun:

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be lied to. People lie to me every day and I'm still alive.

@Seun,
I'd rather neither. Listening to lies on a daily basis doesn't make life any better.

Seun:

Murder is not the same as lying, because of the magnitude of damage caused by a murder.

True: murder is not the same as lying - but neither is better than the other.

Lying has led to murders; and murderers have lied about their sins.

@mrmayor,

I concur to your post. The same could be said about the growth of Islam in Sweden. It is easier for Muslims to be issued visas to Sweden (at least, as of the last two years) than it is for non-Muslims to so granted.

During my holidays to Finland and Sweden last summer, it was clear that not many people are actually "converting" to Islam as Muslim propagandists would have people believe.

Nella:

Muhammad fuked little Children!!!!! n yet u ask if Muslims r Bad?!?!?!? HELL YES!!!!

Muhammad did not do that to little Children. He had just one child bride, and not children.

There are a few well-educated Muslims who live very exemplary lives - morally and socially. Islam may be argued against by the very tenet preached in the Qur'an; but I don't think that people are bad just because they are Muslims.

@Nella,

Nella:

well i'm focusing on Nigerian pastors bcuz dey r d only one i know who boast 2 speak in tounge!!! ( dey probably have their branches in other countries)

Even then, you are still far from the picture. You may focus on Nigerian pastors: and how many of them do you really know in every corner of the country?

There are other pastors outside Nigeria who speak in tongues as well. I know quite a lot of them, and even so there are hundreds of thousands more that I don't know about. Of the ones I know, no one can deny that God has evidently blessed their lives, testimonies, ministries and the churches where they serve the Lord.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

@ Syrup

And what is that suppose to mean that everyone else who disagrees with your ideas is merely taking an academic position?

I don't think my rejoinder was particularly addressed to you; but if it applies, then perhaps you felt somewhat put on spot. I went through the thread before making my input, and yours was not the only post on the thread.

I really don't see the substance in yours if you'd have to be so forward to push your views on others while decrying anyone's opinion that differs from yours. The common sense thing to do would have been to ask questions - just like TV01 did when he was not clear about my statements earlier.

Bottomline is that experience puts to silence the academic arguments of men against what they do not understand - and that goes as well for the charismata of the supernatural gift of tongues.

Bobbyaf:

The same can be said of you also, because your views cannot be supported by scriptures. There is nothing mysterious about the gift of tongues. Tongues simply means language, nothing more.

There's no need to get so personal and emotive on my inputs. What in that line of yours corresponds to my statement thereto?

While trying to be know-it-all about Scripture, your response only comes back showing how you deny the very thing the scriptures teach. If there is nothing mysterious about the gift of tongues, how then does the Bible say that "howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (I Cor. 14:2)?? This is why someone with head-knowledge but without the experience of heart-revelation will argue so much and deny what God's Word teaches.

Bobbyaf:

So what about the other gifts aren't they supenatural too?

Where in my posts did I suggest that the others gifts are not supernatural as well - especially after in my having quoted I Cor. 12:9 earlier? Let me get this: are you so given to arguments because there's really nothing else you can do? I really don't mind that; but at least be generous enough to make some sense in your arguments.

Bobbyaf:

Didn't Paul say that he would rather the church prophesy rather than speak in tongues? Hence the gift of prophecy is far more important for church edification than that of tongues. (see 1 Cor. 14:1)

Sad to observe again that you failed to see the whole picture. Tongues are as much a valuable gift in Church as is the gift of prophesying:

#1. Some of the fruit of prophesying is that men may receive "edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (I Cor. 14:3). Where tongues are interpreted, the church is edified as well (vs.5). This shows clearly that the apostle placed both prophesying and tongues on the same pedestal, as long as there is interpretation of tongues.

#2. In just the same way as the apostle desired that the saints prophesy, he also desired them to all speak in tongues:
(a). "I would that ye all spake with tongues" (vs.5)
(b). "For ye may all prophesy one by one" (vs.31)

#3. The word "rather" in vss.1 and 5 ("rather that ye prophesied" does not depreciate the gift of tongues in anyway. The crux of the argument is that tongues should be interpreted if the church was going to receive edification; otherwise, the tongue speaker indeed edifies himself (vs.4). It is improbable that someone would really edify the church without first trying to edify himself.

#4. The fact that the apostle would spend a whole chapter on the gift of tongues is telling enough of the importance of this precious gift by the Spirit of God.

#5. I've noticed that people who promote prophesying over any other gift are only trying to push the position of their denomination rather than seeing what God's Word says on any matter. For instance, the Seventh-Day Adventist group who see Ellen G. White as the "prophetess" of their Church are more keen on just about anything 'prophecy'. The balance of Scripture shows rather that the charismata of tongues is one of the divine gifts (among the others) by the Holy Spirit given for the profit of all (I Cor. 12:7).

Bobbyaf:

Exactly! Certainly this passage isn't saying that one must speak in tongues is it? Its certainly not making a rule here!

Neither was the passage (I Cor. 12:9) saying that one must prophesy. And I don't think that my post suggested it was making a rule either.

Bobbyaf:

It is simply saying that all the gifts have their place among God's people as God's Spirit sees fit. Its is God's Spirit that decides who recieves what, and not anyone trying to force something on people.

Which is why I don't see why your own interpretation should be forced on anyone else in the first place.

Bobbyaf:

And I suppose you have all the experiences of divine mysteries, heh?

Precisely my point - you will scorn at what you have not experienced nor yet understood. I never claimed to "have all the experiences of divine mysteries"; but even so, I have experienced some of the charismata of the Spirit - that is why I know what I'm talking about, thank you.

The best you can do is mock and ridicle what you are yet to experience.

Bobbyaf:

The gift of tongues was never meant to be a sign of being Spirit-filled?

This is what the Bible says: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4).

Bobbyaf:

Jesus didn't say "by their gifts ye shall know them', rather He said "by their fruits ye shall know them"

What really is your argument, Bobbyaf?? Are you arguing the sign of fulness of the Spirit; or the fruit of the Spirit? These are two very different things - and they should never be mixed.

Tongues are for a 'sign' to unbelievers, as well the gift of prophesy is a sign to believers (I Cor. 14:22); Jesus promised that 'signs' will follow those that believe (Mark 16:17); etc. However, we read about the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22-23.

Bobbyaf:

The fruit of the Spirit bears more evidence of true conversion than the gifts of the Spirit, and that is why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13. The consistent lifestyle of a child of God is far more reaching in its effect than just merely professing to have the gift.

What then is the gist of your arguments? Have I argued against the consitent lifestyle of a child of God anywhere in my post?

Bobbyaf:

How many of these tongue-yielding pastors have they caught prostituting, and aving sexual relations with the young girls in church, and committing the most atrocious acts, ripping off poor people's money and living the big life.

So, is this an avenue for your detraction against personal grieviance? You are classifying tongue-speaking pastors as the most atrocious criminals - and therefore that should be your reason why the gift of tongues is a big nightmare to you? Are you forgetting that just about any gift of the Spirit has been peddled as a front for heinous crimes, and not just the gift of tongues alone?

If you feel that "prophesying" is a safer line for your ideas, you'll know that even that has also been used by bigger criminals. When the apostle Peter warned against false prophets and false teachers, he highlighted the same elements you did in your missive against tongue-speaking pastors. See --

# '. . . tongue-yielding pastors have they caught prostituting, and (h)aving sexual relations with the young girls in church'

So also have some who come as 'prophets' - they are "chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness. . .having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls" (2 Pet. 2:1, 10 & 14)

# '. . .committing the most atrocious acts'

As also these same false 'prophets' and false 'teacher[/i]s' whose trademark is to "speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness. . . they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption" (vss. 18 & 19)

# '. . .ripping off poor people's money and living the big life.'

Yes indeed: of these same false [i]prophets "through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. . .shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time" (vss. 3 & 13).

The thing is that you cannot use any gift of the Spirit as the basis for your accusations for perceived 'atrocious acts': it just doesn't work that way. Many people have gone out preaching that Jesus Christ is the Saviour; and have themselves be found to be worse than the sinners they sought to lead to Christ (2 Pet. 2:19) - should we then blame their atrocities on the Gospel itself? I don't see how the gift of tongues should now be applied in the case of impostors who go about as pastors - as if the gift of tongues is responsible for their atrocities.

Bobbyaf:

Paul says "though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" it profits me nothing if I lack love.

I hope you also realise that the same Paul says: "and forbid not to speak with tongues"?

@Nella,

I understand your persuasions; but this focus on Nigerian pastors is quite unhealthy. If you really don't know the facts on ground, wouldn't it be better that you cease laying allegations againts people about who you have no clue?

Thanks mrmayor - and good points you made.
I'll do my best to maintain the civility being enjoyed so far.

Odemru:

Thanks Syrup, With prayer all things are possible. If he prays and he is serious, God will give the understanding he needs , What other forum are you in? I am new here,

Like you, I believe prayers can change things for the better. I haven't been active on the other Fora I used to participate in. But on Nairaland, I'm mainly on the religious thread.

A very warm welcome to you.

Seun:

When the book of Revelations was written, 144,000 seemed like a very large number. That's why John chose it.

Well, there were other ways of expressing numbers greater than that:

Revelation 9:16
'And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.'

That's 200,000,000 - which is by far more than 144,000 by a difference of 199,856,000.

@Odemru,

Okay. I'll be easier than previous efforts. And you're right: there might be "things" he's uncomfy with. May God help him.

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:

syrup,you now have an unbeliever teaching you from the corrupted scriptures.
wonders shall never cease
Now you have seen what manner of man this character is.

Yep; but again, no cuase for alarm. In the last few posts it is obvious from his over-reaction and dribbling that he is desperately clutching at straws.

@babs787,

babs787:

@syrup

Respect is reciprocal. If you resort to being funny, babs will also do same (understood).

Have I disrespected you in any regard in my last post? How and where have I resorted to being funny? If you're going to be funny under any excuses, please understand that there's nothing reciprocal about that trademark of yours. If to answer questions is the same thing as being disrespectful and funny in your hometown, it is no wonder you can hardly understand yourself.

babs787:

What do you understand by Jesus' own words in the following:

John 5:23 ~ "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

Did you see the word, "which hath sent him". Can God send himself?

Very simply: what did you understand by Jesus' own words in John 5:23?
My question was about honouring the Son; and that's why I offered this afterwards: "How is God honoured - and was Jesus saying that men should honour the Son in a different way?"

babs787:

John 14:1 ~ "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."

Does the above make jesus to be God? He is saying that since they believed in God, they should him also that God sent.

Again, a mechanical devise to insert words where they do not exist in order to cook up your convoluted ideas. There is no word as "sent" in John 14:1. Jesus was emphatically asking people to believe on Him in the same way that they believed in God; and this is clear in that verse as well as underscored in His teaching in other verses.

When Jesus asked people to believe in Him, they understood quite well that He was calling them not just to believe Him as the Sent One; but more than that, to put their faith in Him even as they put their faith in God! That is why in John 14:1, we read the first part of His statement about believing in God ("Ye believe in God" joined to believing in Jesus in the same way ("believe also in me"!

What does the phrase "believe also" in that verse convey to you?? Does it mean that Jesus was speaking about being "sent"; or rather, having faith in Him as people have faith in God There's no "sent" in that verse; and your argument falls flat.

babs787:

How is God honoured - and was Jesus saying that men should honour the Son in a different way?

Syrup, the above does not in anyway makes jesus to be God.

If Jesus was not Deity in exactly the same sense as the Father was God, could He then have spoken those words? If He was merely a "slave" as you Muslims believe, could He have categorically declared that all men should honour Him (the Son) even as (or, in the same way as) they honour the Father??

Regardless of your denials, what do the words spoken by Jesus in John 5:23 mean to you??

babs787:

How does someone believe in GOD - and was Jesus asking people to believe in Him in different

You believe in God through His work etc
You believe in God by accepting the prophets, His books, His commandments, His will etc

Whichever way you want to explain it, Jesus clearly said that in just the same way as one believes in God - that is the very same way that people should believe in Jesus Christ! That is precisely the meaning of John 14:1 - and no matter how you define/explain what it means to believe in God, it is just the same way that Jesus said people should believe in Him (the Son): no difference at all!

@babs787,

babs787:

@syrup,

If you resort to being funny, babs will not hesitate too.

You're in a class of your own as far as being funny goes. Isn't it hilarious that after my having answered every point of your last post about 2 Pet. 1:17-18 and John 5 v37, the best you could do is fold your tail between your legs and offer a fresh round of saliva drooling from the corners of your mouth? What have you said to that previous post??

Something is really suspect when people seek peaceful ends from others and yet would attack the same people for the peace they don't have in themselves.

Christino:

Isn't this for the jokes section?

That would be a great idea! However, I think we could do with some laughter here - as long as we don't take it overboard.

Well, first congratulations!!!

And as they say in "Naija", na so!!

I think such a thread proposed would be great! I got married last November. . . details when the thread is opened. That would be simply great!!

babs787:

Posted by 4 get me
Muhammad did not wait for your emphasis before hating Jews and Christians.
. . . . . . . . .
Posted by 4 get me
We didn't have to think anything - we only had to watch the interpretation of that verse manifested in the hatred Muslims have expressed against the Jews - so much so that Muhammad referred to them as pigs.
. . . . . . . . .

Well, if you are saying Muhammed (saw) hated jews and referred to them as pigs, please explain the below verses for me

Jesus said to her who sought her help
Mark 7v27: it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it unto the DOGS.

It shouldn't be a difficult one for 4get_me to answer that question, I guess.

The basic question was about MUHAMMAD'S HATRED of the Jews - that was the question posed by 4get_me.

When Jesus used those terms as quoted by babs787, was He expressing HATRED for the woman - in the same way that Muhammad was HATING the Jews? The fact that Jesus granted her request shows His grace towards her.

What would happen if a Jew was to find himself in Iran or Saudi Arabia today? How would he be treated by Muslims who adhere to Muhammad's Islamic tenets??

@babyosisi,

My sister, I was away for a long time but only visiting Nigeria again on holidays. I couldn't believe my eyes on noticing the changes that have taken place where I stayed in my last visit - Abuja. And what is more - I'm almost Nigerian now: got married to my Nigerian Christian boyfriend!!

babyosisi:

I think we met at the "are Muslims bad" thread where a lot of things were exposed and we got death threats from some frusstrated Muslims who had their bubbles busted.

Yes, and it happens a lot. My long absence actually was misread by my friends who feared the worst for me. But here I am - happy, refreshed, and fit to unveil more.

babyosisi:

We all know this blabs guy is a joke and a megalomaniac,blowing his trumpet of emptiness as he goes along.
He attempts to disprove the Bible by words of the same Bible he claims have been corrupted not by the "real uncorrupted Mohammedan version".

quoting the "words of Jesus" from Apocrypha and "gospels of Mohammedanism"
Any Christian knows that words of Jesus from outside of the Bible is not valid.

The sad aspect of this guy is that he doesn't even know who is disproving him and rejoiced at a link that actually was against him.
I read mrmayors postings who by the way is not a Christian abut blabs reads it and does not understand it.

It doesn't take a scholar at "chewing-stick" to notice he's such a sad fellow. I wish I knew enough Nigerian proverbs like my husband to describe him; but he's no case for alarm. He caused such laughter the other day in one of the threads when shahan took him apart bit-by-bit and served him some borrowed questions from 4get_me. I couldn't help ROLF to read his reply: "It is never my turn!" That's the trademark of village noise-makers who make their homes in busy motor-parks.

@Nella,

If you have experienced the supernatural gift of tongues by the endowment of the Holy Spirit, you will not seek to attack pastors in Nigeria or anywhere else for that matter.

Do you know exactly how many pastors there are in Nigeria?

Have you listened to every single one of them?

How did you come about the 99.9% of the number of Nigerian pastors when you don't know exactly how many there are?

Please, do not try to legislate for God and find out on that Day that you were not simply wrong; but even more seriously an attacker of what you don't know.

A Muslim debunks the LIE and expresses deep concern for the propaganda!

Thanks babyosisi for providing that youtube link.

@babs787,

babs787:

@syrup,

You blind fool, you are welcome to the thread. I will respond to your post very soon.

I really don't mind being called whatever - it only goes to show that saliva is drooling out of the corner of your Islamic illiteracy.

babs787:

@syrup-shahan

Are you confused or seeing double?? syrup and shahan are not the same person!

babs787:

Posted by syrup
3. There are some people who have died twice. Those (such as Lazarus and the son of the widow) who were miraculously raised from the dead by Jesus Christ, have yet died again as they are not alive to this day. When the Bible says "it is appointed unto men once to die", you should first seek to understand that statement before using it to trump up your convoluted ideas.

Okay maam. Jesus said that being can die once and here you are giving me stories of lazarus and co. Do the two not contradict ma?

No contradiction there. I advised you to simply first seek to understand the statement before using it to trump up your ideas.

babs787:

Posted by syrup
3. Jesus actually died and rose again from the dead - precisely as the Bible declares. The best Muslims have come up with is a denial of the Bible; whereas neither Muhammad nor any Muslim scholar has been able to provide evidence for the tales told in the Qur'an.

As the bible declares!!hmmm. We shall see from your own bible if its true. So I Have not been providing evidence?

What evidence? Evidence and denial are not the same thing - and so far, you have only been denying Biblical statements rather than providing any evidence.

babs787:

Answer the same questions thrown at babyosis

First set of questions

We learnt that Joseph and Nicodemus had already done the anointing with ‘hundred pounds weight of aloes and myrrh’ (john 19v39). So what sort of anointing is that again? Mary saw the sign of life in Jesus and decided to come and help the Master by 'massaging' him.

1. Do jews anoint corpses after three days?
2. Do they go to Sabbath to anoint the dead after it has been buried?
3. When did the practice stop if they have been?
4. Do Jews re-anoint already buried corpse?
5. Why did Mary want to anoint a decomposing body?

After these I will move to Jesus as Gardener

Mr babs787, do you have a problem in your digestive system that you have to degorge the same issues already addressed? Even if you pretend not to have seen mrmayor's rejoinder, have you done more than pedantically blinding yourself to clear statements?

babs787:

Posted by Syrup
What is infact odd is your dribbling around verses with the words "raised" and "lifted" to suggest what thye do not mean at all. The Biblical narratives of the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are not fabricated. The accounts were eye-witness accounts; and they were well prophesied in the OT.

1.Who were the eyewitnesses? Let me have a verse supporting your claim
2. Let me have the prophesy in the OT

The eyewitnesses are the same ones you have been artfully denying.
The OT prophesies are the same ones you have refused to examine and already offered you severally on the Forum.

babs787:

Posted by syrup
2. If you are so sure of your arguments at all, can you please tell us why Muhammad never made any reference to Isaiah at all? If Isaiah's prophecy appeals to you at all, do you also recognize that in the same prophecy the Messaih is called "the might God"? Even the NIV you have been quoting clearly calls the Messiah "Mighty God" in Isa.9:6.

I have replied to Isaiah 9v6, one of 4 get me's question. Check it out.

Could you please redirect me to where you answered the issues about Isaiah 9:6?

babs787:

Quran 40v78: we did aforetime send apostles before thee, of them are some whose story we have related to thee and some whose story we have not related to thee.

Now compare these two verses

Quran 7v158: , the prophet who can neither read nor write
Quran 96 v 1-5; Read in the name of your Lord and Cherisher who created man from a mere clot of congealed blood. Read!, and they Lord is most beautiful .He who taught men the use of pen.

Isaiah 29v12: and the book was delivered to him that is not learned saying, Read this, I pray thee and he saith,' I am not learned"

1. Unless you want to have a reputation as one who confirms that lying (taqiyya) is a doctrine of Islam, you would just have to concede that Isaiah was never mentioned in the Qur'an - not even the verses you referenced here.

2. If you have to use any text in Isaiah to authenticate Islam, then you would have to admit that the same Isaiah called the Messiah "the Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6). There is no half-way deal of jumping verses for selective confirmation of Islam; and if Muhammad deliberately avoided making any reference to Isaiah in the Qur'an, your arguments are mute.

3. Reading the context of Isaiah 29 carefully shows that Muhammad was not in the picture at all.

"¹⁰For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. ¹¹And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: ¹²And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

Is it not clear that the people being addressed were the Jews, and therefore had nothing to do with Muslims? Since when did God commit Jewish matters to an Arab who turned round to hate the Jews?

babs787:

Posted by syrup
Second, in great disregard for authentic prophesies, Muhammad stands accused by his own Qur'an for having tried to reduce the glory of the Son of God to a mere "slave" of Arab polytheism. That is as blasphemous as the verses in the Qur'an highlight; and there's no twisting and turning around that verse to accuse Christians for doing the right thing.

Please read domwas2's thread for better explanation on "sonship of God' as being used by the Jews

A typical Muslim excuse. In all the various meanings of the term "son(s)" of God" in Jewish understanding, not one time did Muhammad acknowledge it in a positive way. That was the one thing he repudiated and consigned to the notion of a heresy - and that is one issue out of several that fuelled his hate against the Jews while failing to understand them.

babs787:

Posted by syrup
Can you please establish where in the Qur'an Muslims are called "followers of Jesus"?

Very good then, please give me a verse where Jesus used the word 'christianity' for you

1. It is there in the Bible where followers of Jesus came to be called "Christians" - Acts 11:26. Not at any time did the believers in Christ count that as unworthy (James 2:7).

2. Even Muhammad in his Qur'an used the term "Christians" to refer to people who are followers of Christ (e.g., Sura 5. vs 69) as distinct from the Jews and even Muslims. Besides, in Sura 3:55 (". . .I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection. . .", it is clear that those who follow Jesus are Christians. Muslims have always confessed that they follow "Allah" and Muhammad.

3. Noticing that you cleverly dodged the question, it stands to reason that you're such a sly tittle-tattler.

babs787:

Posted by syrup
Where did Muhammad get his version of the birth and miracles of Jesus - while leaving out His death by Crucifixion, His resurrection, His fulfillment of OT prophesies, His divine teachings, His glorifying the Father on earth, and the fact that He called Himself the Son of God, and testified that His salvation was to the ends of the world??

Read Quran chaprer 3 for explanation on that

Where did Muhammad get his tales of chapter 3 of the Qur'an - while leaving out Jesus' Crucifixion, Resurrection, fulfillment of OT prophecies, divine teachings, glorifying the Father on earth, His attestation of His divine Sonship, and His worldwide salvation?

babs787:

Posted by syrup
And why is it that [b]only Jesus was called "Christ" in the Qur'an - what is the meaning of "CHRIST" if it falls short of the One anointed to save?[/b]

Also read donwas2's post for explanation on christ. So you don't know that christ means 'anointed'. Its not only Jesus that the title was used for. Na wa ooooo.

Nevermind your illiteracy, your cheap dribble hasn't scored any points. Please answer the question; and perhaps you will see why Muhammad could not have been sent by the living God.

babs787:

Post by syrup
You really don't believe in Jesus Christ at all if you can conveniently pander to the denials of the Qur'an while holding that out to be "truth".
[/b]Go read Quran chapter 3

As above.

babs787:

[b]Posted by syrup
Can you please show one verse in the Bible where Jesus categorically state that "He is not God"??]

Is there no difference between someone that sent and someone that was sent?

Mr babs787, where is the verse where you find Jesus categorically stating that "He is not God"?

babs787:

Posted by syrup
If you are so convinced that the "commandments" are able to save, which one of the Mosaic Commandments do you keep in order to be "saved"? Do Muslims keep the "commandments" of a Testament they accuse of having been corrupt?

So you don't know that we have the 10 commandments in the Quran too.

Please provide the reference for the 10 Commandments in the Qur'an - exactly as the Bible has it.

Secondly, how has the 10 Commandments "saved" you Muslims?

babs787:

Posted by syrup
And what is the summation of that drivel - how do you establish the fact of Muhammad's denials as "truth"? And who was Muhammad really accusing - the Jews or Christians? How did he come about his summation that Christians killed Jesus (if that's what you're applying to those verses)??

Are you a jew? Na real wa o. So to you, christians are also jews.

Where did I state that "christians are also jews"?? It is obvious now that you're a local noise-maker who is a complete stranger to truth and a cheap one at that!

As far as language goes, I believe the Arabic word for "God" is "Allah" (although I'm not a speaker of Arabic).

However, when Arabic-speaking Christians address God as "Allah", it is only as a matter of language and nothing suggesting the possibility of the deity worshipped in Islam.

When we seek to understand the identities of the deities in either religions, one can't miss the point that Islam worships a deity far removed from and different than the One worshipped in Judaism and Christianity.

There are other faiths who use similar appellations to address the qualities of "God" - and on the surface you would think they sound "Christian." However, the fact that the Qur'an disparages Jews and Christians in particular more than any other religion or faith is testimony to the fact that Muhammad was antagonistic to the God of the Biblical faiths.

The Allah worshipped in Islam is not the LORD God of Israel who in the New Testament is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Hi @TV01,

I've been quite busy but now on holidays for a while, briefly visiting Nigeria again! 

TV01:

I pretty much agree with your post. But could I ask this. Tongues manifested both as known(human) and unknown languages. Would you say that "Interpretation" could therefore be of a known (but unspoken by the interpreter) lanuguage, or a unknown one?

I would offer that as far as the gift of tongues are supernaturally endowed by the Spirit, the gift of interpretation are supernaturally endowed as well.

Basically, what is 'interpreted' will be conveyed to the human understanding to bear fruit for appropriate response. There are instances where the speaker has articulated very understandable communication to his hearers without reference to 'interpreters' - amazing because the speaker comes off quite surprised that he was speaking a language not before learnt by him/her.

However, there are times when tongues are supernaturally inspired by the Spirit, so that the speaker utters expressions in prayer and/or praise that no one understands. In these instances, the interpretation would be supernaturally endowed as much as the speaking in tongues itself.

I hope that helps.

Regards.

@Mustay,

Mustay:

If u are not a muslim, u are LAZY. And being literal, Yoga lessons aint good?

I suppose that being a Muslim is the laziest thing to happen to anyone - thus explains your lazy input. Besides, when I schooled in Nigeria, I saw how true that was in the North where a lot of Muslims lived.

And outside of Nigeria, they happen to be generally lazy as most of them with large family sizes would sign up for social benefits rather than seek employment. The short time I spent in Sweden last year impressed this plainly to any visitor to that country.

Only academic minds argue against the 'mysteries' of the Spirit that they cannot understand. If the charismata of tongues were only meant to be interpreted by mere human philosophies, what then is the need for the corresponding charismata of "interpretation of tongues"?

If the gift of tongues is a supernatural gift (as surely it is), then the interpretation of tongues is equally a 'supernatural' gift of the Spirit.

1 Cor. 12:9 ~ "To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues."

Trying to academically figure out the mysteries of the Spirit only shows that such a person has no experience of divine mysteries; and one who is bereft of the supernatural will predictably scorn what he has neither experienced nor understood.

The gift of tongues is a supernatural charismata given by the Spirit of the living God to Spirit-filled believers.

babs787:

Where did jesus say we should accept him as GOD?

@babs787,

What do you understand by Jesus' own words in the following:

John 5:23 ~ "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

John 14:1 ~ "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."

How is God honoured - and was Jesus saying that men should honour the Son in adifferent way?

How does someone believe in GOD - and was Jesus asking people to believe in Him in different way?

@babs87,

babs787:

Now to your post. Let me start with 4 get me

Hope you are all seeing the reasons for the non-interference of my brothers and sisters. A knowledgeable muslim is enough for thousands of christians put together. Islam is the truth and I have been exposing the fraud in christianity and will continue till people see the falsehood in christianity especially the issue of christ being crucifified.

You are neither knowledgeable nor intelligent; and only half-baked under-achievers applaud themselves the way you do - especially when they are dishonest. The only reason why your Muslim brethren have not been actively participating is because: first, they have nothing to say; and second, because they would choose rather to not appear as dishonest as you.

babs787:

@4 get me

You posted a quote in which you never ponder on before posting to me.

3:55 "Behold! Allah said:  O Jesus!  I will take thee And raise thee to Myself And clear thee (of the falsehoods) Of those who blaspheme; I will make those Who follow thee superior To those who reject faith, To the Day of Resurrection:  Then shall ye all return unto me, And I will judge Between you of the matters wherein ye dispute

I didn't see 4get_me posting that quote to you - his reply was to babyosisi, and he only left you a few questions.

babs787:

Note the words, 'I will take thee and raise thee to myself', 'and clear thee of falsehood of those who blaspheme, ' I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith',

Let see one after the other.

1. 'I will take thee and raise thee to myself' . Compare the words with that of Quran 4v 156-159 and Isaiah 52v 13: Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Isaiah 52v13: he will be raised and lifted up

The book of Isaiah didnot say that he would be resurrected. They did not kill him and that is the reason for God raising him up. He will come as the sign of the last hour to come and live and die. No being can die twice. It is appointed unto man to die once. Isaiah even used the words, 'raised' and 'lifted' to clarify the issue.

1. Most Muslims believe that the words of Qur'an 3:55 ['I will take thee and raise thee to myself'] point to ascension rather than to resurrection of Jesus. However, Isaiah 52:13 does not speak of ascension nor resurrection; rather, the words in that verse are expressive of honour - as Douay Rheims version has it: "he shall be exalted, and extolled, and shall be exceeding high" (or as GoodNews renders it simply: "he will be highly honored".

2. In that verse, Isaiah does not suggest an ascension at all; but rather used a familiar Biblical expression for greatly honouring or extolling/highly praised. There are other verses to bear this out:

Isa. 33:10 - "Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself."

I Chron. 14:2 - "And David perceived that the LORD had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his people Israel."

You can see that nowhere in all these instances were resurrection or ascension suggested by such pharses as "rise", or "lift/lifted up".

3. There are some people who have died twice. Those (such as Lazarus and the son of the widow) who were miraculously raised from the dead by Jesus Christ, have yet died again as they are not alive to this day. When the Bible says "it is appointed unto men once to die", you should first seek to understand that statement before using it to trump up your convoluted ideas.

babs787:

Also, ", he will be raised and lifted up, " seems to suggest that Jesus will be picked up right from the cross, or saved right from the cross by Allah Almighty.  "raised and lifted" seems to suggest that Jesus will not die, nor get crucified, but rather be raised and lifted by GOD Almighty to Heavens.

1. "Raised and lifted up" as found in the NIV does not suggest a resurrection nor ascension - as shown above. If anything at all, to read the word "raised" in reference to the Messiah will only strongly suggest that He first died: for that is the precise meaning of someone being "raised up", as He Himself bears out:

Matt. 11:5 - "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

2. I don't know of any Muslim who suppose that Jesus Christ was put on the Cross; not to mention that He was "picked up right from the cross!" You are only forcing a view that is neither substantiated in the Bible nor in the Qur'an.

3. Jesus actually died and rose again from the dead - precisely as the Bible declares. The best Muslims have come up with is a denial of the Bible; whereas neither Muhammad nor any Muslim scholar has been able to provide evidence for the tales told in the Qur'an.

babs787:

It just seems odd to see both words "raised" and "lifted", and not just one of them, in Isaiah 52:13, and yet think that they agree with the fabricated crucifixion story about Jesus in the NT.

What is infact odd is your dribbling around verses with the words "raised" and "lifted" to suggest what thye do not mean at all. The Biblical narratives of the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are not fabricated. The accounts were eye-witness accounts; and they were well prophesied in the OT.

babs787:

Why did GOD Almighty choose to say "raised" and "lifted" in Isaiah 52:13?

1. The NIV's rendition of "raised" and "lifted" is far from the original Hebrew words - and that is why you find the expressions in other Versions of the Bible not at all suggesting your interpretation:

'. . . he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high' ~ ASV.

'. . . he will be honoured, and lifted up, and be very high' ~ BBE.

'. . . He will be given great praise and the highest honors' ~ CEV.

'. . . he shall be exalted and be lifted up, and be very high' ~Darby.

'. . . he shall be exalted, and extolled, and shall be exceeding high' ~ Douay Rheims.

'. . . he will be highly honored' ~ GNB.

'. . . He will be respected, praised, and highly honored' ~ God's Word.

'. . . he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.' (JPS)

'. . . he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high' ~ KJV.

Please babs787, could you please tell us why you pedantically drivelled on about the NIV rendition of Isaiah 52:13 while artfully dodging the rendition of other versions?

2. If you are so sure of your arguments at all, can you please tell us why Muhammad never made any reference to Isaiah at all? If Isaiah's prophecy appeals to you at all, do you also recognize that in the same prophecy the Messaih is called "the might God"? Even the NIV you have been quoting clearly calls the Messiah "Mighty God" in Isa.9:6.

babs787:

2. clear thee of falsehood of those who blaspheme,

So you don't know that the above verse is referring to you christians! You have been saying all sorts of blasphemous statement against Jesus, calling him God, son of God, the saviour, he died for your sin, etc. Muslims do not blaspheme against him, we accord him respect and accept him as the servant and messenger of Allah (swt).Better still,  can you tell where Muslims has blasphemed against Jesus.

In the first place, that verse was not referring to Christians who are thought to have "blasphemed" Jesus Christ. If anything at all, we ascribe the praise and glory due unto Him - as foretold in many instances in the Old Testament. If the OT never taught His deity and Redeeming grace (especially by the same Isaiah you have been quoting), then it would have been out of place for anyone to refer to the Messiah as the "Son of God" or "God".

Second, in great disregard for authentic prophesies, Muhammad stands accused by his own Qur'an for having tried to reduce the glory of the Son of God to a mere "slave" of Arab polytheism. That is as blasphemous as the verses in the Qur'an highlight; and there's no twisting and turning around that verse to accuse Christians for doing the right thing.

babs787:

3. I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith',

Yes. We muslims are the real followers of Jesus.

Can you please establish where in the Qur'an Muslims are called "followers of Jesus"?

This hilarious claim cannot stand up to scrutiny and is at best a ploy of deceit known as taqiyya among the Shiite Muslims.

babs787:

We believe in his birth, his miracles, his being to Israelites, his ascension etc.

Where did Muhammad get his version of the birth and miracles of Jesus - while leaving out His death by Crucifixion, His resurrection, His fulfillment of OT prophesies, His divine teachings, His glorifying the Father on earth, and the fact that He called Himself the Son of God, and testified that His salvation was to the ends of the world??

And why is it that only Jesus was called "Christ" in the Qur'an - what is the meaning of "CHRIST" if it falls short of the One anointed to save?

You really don't believe in Jesus Christ at all if you can conveniently pander to the denials of the Qur'an while holding that out to be "truth".

babs787:

But you do not follow him, you are acting contrary to him. Jesus made it clear in the bible that he is not but you claimed he is God.

Can you please show one verse in the Bible where Jesus categorically state that "He is not God"??

babs787:

He said that one can gain paradise by keeping the commandments but you said no, its only through his blood, etc. Also go to the link I supplied, you will read about Nazarenes and christianity and will read about Jesus christ as the PROPHET OF ISLAM.

Jesus Christ the prophet of Islam has nothing to do with the Jesus Christ of the Bible - Old and New Testaments. He had nothing to do with the sins of Muhammad; nothing to do with the polytheism of Islam disguised as monotheism; nothing to do with the rituals propagated in Islam; nothing to do a black stone in the Kaa'ba; and certainly nothing to do with al-Taqiyya (the doctrine of lying in Islam).

Jesus Christ also established the fact that the commandments of the Old Testament could not "save" - and more than anything, the OT all pointed to Him as the Saviour.

If you are so convinced that the "commandments" are able to save, which one of the Mosaic Commandments do you keep in order to be "saved"? Do Muslims keep the "commandments" of a Testament they accuse of having been corrupt?

babs787:

Read the below verse again

"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge;  That they said (in boast):  'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.'  But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.  Nay[b], Allah raised him up Unto Himself;[/b] and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise.  And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him  (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.   (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"  

Did you read the above too.

A word is enough for the wise.

And what is the summation of that drivel - how do you establish the fact of Muhammad's denials as "truth"? And who was Muhammad really accusing - the Jews or Christians? How did he come about his summation that Christians killed Jesus (if that's what you're applying to those verses)??

I particularly like the KJV of the Bible; though admittedly its diction in Old English style proves somewhat difficulty for some people.

The perculiar "thee, thou, doeth," etc., are not sufficient reasons for anyone to find the KJV out of place. At least, it helps to distinguish between singular and plural subjects being addressed and minimizes the misconceptions that might emerge from the word "you" (as that is used for both singular and plural English tenses).

The reverence is preserved; and the complaint that it smacks of a holier-than-thou impression is funny - the Bible is holy, and it should not be seen as otherwise.

However, I enjoy other versions including the Amplified, English Standard Version (ESV), and the NIV. I'm not an enthusiast of "The Message" version.

@Ndipe, thanks for those links.

@babs787,

babs787:

I laugh when anytime I read christians posting verses supporting their claims, they never knew that most verses contradict each other.

'Contradictions' are mechanically deviced when you deliberately insert ideas into texts, and then take those texts out of contexts.

babs787:

1. What do the verses (20 & 21) mean to you?

You quoted from the letter of Simon Peter where he said that a voice came from heaven saying that, 'this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. Peter said they all heard the voice meaning that it must be God speaking huh.

The word "all" is one of your devices deliberately inserted into the text so that you could try to find a 'contradiction'. Peter never said "they all heard the voice"; and you only have to read the context of the verse to see who he was referring to by "we."

2 Pet. 1:18 "And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."

What incident was Peter referring to here? The context is clear that he was pointing to the Transfiguration on the mountain in Matthew 17 and Mark 9

"And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. . ." (Mark 9:2; see also Matt. 17:1-2).

It was on that mountain that they heard the voice which said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matt. 17:5). When Peter recounted the incidence in 2 Pet. 1:17-18, he used "we" as referring to himself, James and John. He never said that they all heard the voice.

babs787:

Now read the verse below and tell me who to believe between Simon Peter and Jesus

John 5 v37: And the Father who sent has himself borne witness to me.HIS VOICE YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD, his form you have never seen,

2. Which do we hold on to?

In John 5 v37, Jesus was not addressing His disciples, but rather the Jews who persecuted Him. Read from verse 16: "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."

Besides, this event of Jesus addressing the Jews is most likely to have occured around the Temple (compare vs. 14); and not on the mountain.

The 'contradiction' you deliberately whipped up here is disingenuous at best - and by inserting the word "all" where it never was mentioned in 2 Pet. 1:17-18, only exposes your antics.

I think the same thing is being argued.

"The age of accountability today is when you reach the age of cognition."

trini_girl:

The age of accountability today is when you reach the age of cognition where you fully understand the gospel and can make a decision. it can be as early as 12 years old, dependant on the child's ability to understand.

I don't know if fully understanding the Gospel defines the age of accountability/cognition. There are lots of grown-ups who do not have a basic understanding of other issues of life, let alone having to fully understand the Gospel.

I would offer that even in the Old Testament, children were seen as accountable for their actions without specifying an age bracket. 2 Ki 2:23-24 "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Number 26:31 should be understood in light of Deut. 1:39 - "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."

The line that underscores what davidylan was trying to point out as far as regards the age of accountability is the clause: "had no knowledge between good and evil." When someone acts out of cognition/knowledge of between good and evil, such is demonstrating the age of accountability - IMHO. But there again, I may be wrong, and I'll graciously receive correction thereto.