Peter was not the foundation of the Church, and that is clear in I Cor. 3:11 -

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

My dear, I'm asking as well, especially when the Qur'an accepted it initially. What I don't get is this: when some Muslims (not all that I know) say that the Bible is not the Word of God, they still can't explain why the Qur'an believed in it at some point in Islamic history.

nferyn,

First, I don't read you giving up on the debate in the other thread with 4get_me simply on the premise that there was no adequate definition of God. The definition of God was not the issue - you rather gave up after he put you on proper grounds for a balanced discourse on the definition of atheism, to the effect that the same goalposts you pressumed are and have many times shifted as to what really is atheism.

Then, of course, for me personally as a Christian, I'd just say that God is who He says He is - the "I AM THAT I AM." Besides that, I know no other way of describing (rather than 'defining') Him. This may seem preposterous to you, and I really don't mind that. The issue is that when people try to define/describe Him in other ways than who and what He says He is, then there's bound to be grounds for differing opinions. So, point there - the accusation that I'm as guilty as Seun, because I don't see evil 'to be found in Him' as he supposed. The only difference is not about my positive claims, but that if my experience does not attest to the claims I read of about who and what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, then I'd have no reason at all to believe. God is spoken of in other religions, and I haven't found those claims about God to hold true in most of the questions I've asked - and that's the reason why I don't hold to those claims. So, I'd rather we keep things in proper perspectives and understand here that between Seun and me, the issue is not about the existence or non-existence of God, but rather about the qualities ascribed to Him - "both good and evil", or otherwise "horrible".

I've asked that you make it simple for yourself - it is not 'evidence' that you need, but a clear statement of what you really are attuned to: unbelief. I'm sorry to state it so, but when you say that "Evidence is what is found in the natural world", you're actually saying the same thing that brings you closer to my presuppositions about your claims. We don't deny or shy away from "evidence" - the problem is that the evidence presented are often decried by those asking for them. That is why I said earlier that to deny the supernatural (as opposed to what is natural) is to be irrational about what actually falls within reality. So many skeptics have difficulty believing in God, but an honest skeptic is not one to deny supernatural phenomena even though he may not be able to explain its nature. It is not 'evidence' you need, but an "interpretation" of the evidence for the supernatural. Unfortunately, these evidences are only denied by skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own position.

Let me state it simply: a skeptic who denies the supernatural is denying what falls within reality. So, if you're prescribing that all realities be merely on the natural plane, you're trying to hold a very narrow view of what is beyond the natural.

That's why the concepts of spirituality and the supernatural make no sense to you - and just because you don't understand them does not mean they don't exist. Concisely, it shouldn't be difficult to understand what 'supernatural' is - that which is outside the natural realm and not subject to natural laws.

Hey Gwaine, you made some very interesting inputs in your reply to olabowale's. What surprised me is your allusion to the possibility that the Qur'an of today is not what Muslims have always claimed it to be:

Gwaine:

I wonder if you believe that the Qur'an has always been as it appears today and that
nothing was ever missing that could not have been added to it.

Not that I question what you might be suggesting in that statement (that the Qur'an has not always been as it appears today and probably that somethings might be missing that were not added). I'm only just wondering if there's any reference you might want to share in regards to that, or perhaps I'm misreading you.

I would've liked to see a follow up on that by olabowale so that I don't keep getting the feeling that Gwaine's reply says exactly what exists in the real world - that the Muslim claim of the preservation of the Qur'an is not what it actually is. My question then would be: could the Qur'an be taken seriously in its claim about the Bible (or any part of it)?

belloti:

[b]Hey Mr Block, your thread is really cute. the fact of the matter is that there are over a million similarities between both of those great individuals and in real sense of it they were sent by the same Person to preach the same Religion.

Mr belloti,

This is what I call passion for one's religion. . . lol. Since there are 'over a million similarities' between Jesus and Muhammad, would you care to give me just about thirty? And, uhm. . . are you sure that Islam and Christianity are the same? I'd like to see how that is so.

Seun:

God, however, if he exists, created the world both good and evil. That means that there is evil to be found in him. Either there is no God, or he is a horrible God. A holy God doesn't exist.

@Seun,

Try something else. How do you explain that God created the world both good and evil? You're introducing an ingredient that makes it easy enough for you to allege that if evil is real and in the world today, then by default evil is to be found in Him. Look harder - your own arguments do not prove or disprove anything about the non-existence or existence of God. You may call Him horrible, but accuse Him all you want, it still does not negate His existence.

There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

@nferyn,

You haven't added anything to the point nor actually answered my questions, which is not surprising because that's the narrow and convenient backdoor escapist theories atheists appeal to. Make it simple for yourself - you don't believe in God because you don't want to; not because there's no evidence for the supernatural. I've read your inputs in other threads about the issue, but when guys like 4get_me took you up on the weakness of your arguments, you did the right thing back then to recognise the fact that atheists do not have proof for their own assertions.

It's easy: what you pedantically call 'evidence' is an appeal to some form of limited tool - perhaps more suited to the field of natural science and mathematical determinations. What you have to understand is that when philosophers try to explain everything about reality by mathematical or scientific methodolgies, they are missing the point, because spiritual issues are not scientifically determined.

When people ask for 'evidence' for the supernatural, they should be willing to apply spiritual laws and language to what lies outside the natural. If that is denied by philosophers who want to cajole everything into the natural, then it is not religious people who are ignorant - it is rather the skeptic that is quite ignorant of these issues because he denies the reality of the supernatural simply on the basis of his lack of an understanding of spiritual phenomena. I don't see you as an ignorant skeptic, but to go that way would be highly suggestive of just wanting to deny the reality of the supernatural - which would be very surprising indeed.

@nferyn, you're trying ever so hard to wax philosophical at things you cannot understand nor explain.
You'd have to convince me that belief in God was the invention of the devil; and then you'd have to prove to me that the devil is real. Then you'd still have to prove the reality of the consequences of your own belief.

The devil is past repentance, so there are no "if's" about it.

dearie:

Between Morality And Standing In Faith

As a X-tian, what would be your response? would u be religious and damn morality to say the truth, or u would rather be moral n compromise your faith by telling a 'lie'.

This doesn't seem to undo the knots. It's as if morality has nothing to do with being religious - but that's an impossible situation, because they go together. One can hardly be standing in faith if the question of morality is ignored; and how does being moral equal compromising one's faith?

Anyway, I'll tell the truth, albeit in a condescending and graceful manner. If I don't, a few things might crop up:

(a) who knows if my host deliberately set such a dish to test the genuineness of my commitment to God?
If I fail to tell the truth, there'll be enuf grounds for them to complain about my morality after I've left
the scene.

(b) one lie leads to another - it'll only be a matter of giving each lie a different name to euphemize whatever
tension is on ground.

(c) the truth hurts - but a lie will hurt as badly or even worse so; I'd better be embarrassed today by telling
the truth than be applauded for lying only to be exposed sometime in the future.

Okay, I'll smile (as I've always done in similar cases) and put it this way: "What's the dish called?" Host tells me, then I respond: "Hmm. . ., well I'm not used to a meal like this, but I'm sure we all have different tastes." It's not a surefire anecdote, but while it has failed me in some, it has saved me in others. All the same, I'll try and be honest about the matter in a gentle and loving spirit, which is not an easy thing to do.

Babs, welcome anytime - and thanks for your input.

Well, the Lord Jesus was indeed the Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:15 because that was a prophecy of a particular individual and not just any other prophet. In the New Testament, you find that the Jews were expecting the Prophet that Moses prophesied of in that verse, and they knew that none of the other prophets was being referred to in that context. “Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.” (John 6:14). Again, when you look at the questions asked John the Baptist, it is clear that there was a particular prophet in view in Deut. 18:15. Every Jew knew that the prophecy was pointing to just one person and not just to any prophet in a general sense. “And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.” (John 1:21). The important thing to note is that this prophet would be like unto Moses – speaking God’s Word as a Law (Deut. 18:18). Yes, Jesus was that Prophet, and the prophecy was not in reference to anyone else.

All the same, we don’t know everything in the Bible. I just wanted to share that Jesus was indeed both a Prophet and more than that.

I think there's more than just the language people use when it comes to practising one's faith. Some people can be very 'moralistic' in the the way they speak and yet fail to practise the essence of their faith. Add gossip, 'white/innocent lies', cheating husbands, etc to the list. And you wonder how many people that make a profession to faith are actually practising it.

I know it's not easy to maintain a life of clear righteousness in today's compromisive world. But how far should one be willing to go with the compromises, if at all? Or maybe another interesting thread would be titled: "Would You Ever Compromise Your Faith?" Not that I advocate a compromise, but when the issues begin to surface, we'll then know how many of us fill the list.

There's a way to read that verse that makes it seem as though life is a dice experiment. But it wasn't meant to be so. Actually, the book of Ecclesiastes looks at issues of life first from a human point of view, before drawing a coherrent inference that leads to the 'conclusion of the matter' at the end of the book (chap. 12:13-14).

In a nutshell, there are all kinds of experiences common among people of every clime. From a human point of reference, these experiences are 'vanities' - because they seemingly bewilder the mind and have no standardised application. If all we strive for is constrained by mere human goals in view, then life would have seemingly no meaning (thus the often repeated 'vanity of vanities'). The quote again (Eccl. 9:11-12) -

¹¹Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. ¹²For man does not know his time. Like fish that are taken in an evil net, and like birds that are caught in a snare, so the children of man are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.

"For man does not know his time" - that's why I supposed the human perspective is highlighted first, before the conclusion at the end. Compare that clause with James 4:15 - "For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that" - and that's the safest place to be, because a person who is walking in God's will does not experience life as a matter of "time and chance". As the Psalmist said in Psa. 31:15 - " My times are in thy hand," and those who go through life with that in view experience a very different outlook in life - one that is sure and not left to chance.

That's my own understanding of the topic.

babwilms:

@playboy. Jesus is not a prophet ooooo. Where did you get that from. Is the muslims that believe he was a prophet but not christians.

Well, I'm sure that the Bible shows us that Jesus Christ was the Prophet, or He would not have been the one prophesied by Moses in Deut. 18:15 - "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."

Besides, He was more than just a/the Prophet - He was and is Prophet, Priest, King and Redeemer-Saviour.

Personally, I don't think there's anything in common shared between Jesus and Muhammed, or we would have to compare them to every other man; whether in terms of founding religions, or relationships with people/women (celibacy or polygamy). Joseph Smith founded the Mormon religion; Gautama Buddha founded Buddhism; Taoism was by Lao Tzu; and Guru Nanak birthed Sikhism. However, comparing Jesus and Muhammad on the criteria of having founded religions is superficial.

What Jesus was and accomplished, Muhammad was not and did not. But, of course, that's my opinion as a Christian.

chinani:

The Nation of Islam is outright antiSemitic meanwhile they drive around in Bentleys like the Queen Mum profitting on the fear, ignorance and poverty in the (Eastcoast) black community. On top of that, they killed Malcolm! Chei!

You couldn't have been more correct from mere observations. The sham of the movement was not so obvious to the crowd that gathered for the Millions More March last year, where Farakan was calculatingly 'anti-his-own-people'.

Moukee:

The blind stares of a million pairs of eyes, looking hard but won't realize that they will never see the truth.

Uhm. . . that includes yours, yes?

Moukee:

It is my considered opinion that when coups and revolutions are being staged, they shouldn't just be against the politicians. The evangelists should be included in the list of those to be swept away for they are also politicians. Politicians in cassocks.

And after all your sleepless nights, your solution to your perceived problem is to kill your friend. I see how rational your own version of philosophy is.

Fasting serves its purposes, but it does not necessarily make a person born again.

The moment the disciples trusted that Jesus was the Christ and Son of the living God, and confessed Him as such, the new birth was already evident in them.

The question then is: when did this happen?

I really don't know as yet when or how it happened for each of the disciples; but I know that before Jesus went to the Cross, the disciples had believed in Him as the Christ and Son of the Living God. That is what the Bible lays as the foundation for the New Birth:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God. . . He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
[John 1:12-13 & 3:18].

It is knowing and confessing the name of 'Jesus' as the Christ and Son of God that the new birth is given and believers become the children of God.

Before Peter's confession by divine revelation of Jesus as the Son of the Living God, they already had this confession and even recognized it in practical terms by worshipping Him:

"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."
[Matt. 14:33]

And when some of the disciples grumbled no longer walked with Him, He asked His remaining disciples whether they also would not depart from Him. But they answered:

"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
[John 6:68-69]

By confessing Jesus as such, I believe that John 1:12 and 3:18 applied to them. And in that regard, I believe that the disciples were born again by believing in Jesus before even He went to the Cross. After the resurrection, the privileges of New Birth become more experiential and understandable to them when they received the Holy Spirit. From then on, everyone believing in the Gospel and confessing Jesus as "Lord" and Christ, and the Son of God, became born again.

The Church is a community/group of believers - you "go to" that community when it is gathered for worship and whatever else for which they come together. No one supposes that a location/cement building is the Church. The Bible says not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together - that speaks of going to "Church" in the sense of going to your own company/community of believers.

John Smith is not a "family" all by himself. Until he gathers with the other Smiths, he's all by himself simply 'John Smith', and not "the Smith family." Until a christian gathers with other christians, there's no "Church". For the Church to be evident according to the Bible, a Christian should gather together with other Christians; and that's what we mean by "go to Church!"

Obeying = Keeping

                 Keeping = Doing

                                  Doing = Walking in

                                               Walking in = Abiding in. . .

                                                                               . . .  God's Word.

There's just no difference: they're all the same.

mlks_baby, it's not surprising that you've won the repect of many, and I just want you to know that you're an encouragement to many of us. I thought I knew - until I read yours; and just want you to be encouraged, because whatever one goes through is not in vain if one has an evident love of God. Congrats on your admission to read pursue legal studies; I've no doubt you'd make a good mark in your field.

And thanks to everyone who has contributed in one way or the other - all sides have made impact to make me think deeper.

Well, what then is the meaning of this text:

I Cor. 14:2 - "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

# he speaks not to men, but to God

# no man understands him

# in spirit he speaks mysteries.

@xkape,

We learn everyday.

I don't have all the answers, but I see your point. True talk, that religion (in the sense of works - good or bad) does not save anyone. Faith in Jesus Christ guarantees salvation; and the saved demonstrate the reality of their faith by good works.

Enjoy.

@Ashiwaju,

Who's spilling blood? Over what - a debate? Please.

Let those who find the issues interesting enough enjoy what people are posting. I'm a Christian and don't know it all - the Bible or the Qur'an. When people ask us to be silent over issues we can no longer afford to be ignorant about - that is the greater sin. The discussions will continue, period. As long as the issues continue and there are a few more things to say, people are free to do so.

Casting aspersions is not on my list; and the world will be a better place when we all try to understand why a book says there should be no other religion except the one it preaches, and anyone not submitting to it will suffer the edge of the sword. I want to understand why I'm not free to worship God as a Christian - and if my friends who are not Christians can tell me their own side of the story without the need for derisive language, understanding will be on the horizon. To push for an end to the discussion is worse than casting aspersions.

You may not enjoy the discussions. That's okay. Others are interested - without the castigations. Could we just let them shed more light on pressing issues here? Hmmm?

@Ashiwaju,

You seem to have rushed in with more confusion than helps the case. I'm learning from whatever is being posted, as I'm sure many others are. You will never find a Muslim refer to the Trinity as "The name of the Father, of the son and Of the Holy spirit = 1 God" as you have done. Translation: Islam does not believe in the Trinity.

Take it easy. If you believe in your own love preaching, your tone will indicate it. This is a forum for debating issues, and people are bound to agree and disagree. We are learning - let the intellectuals who know the Bible and the Qur'an enlighten us more.

Peace.

@mamaput,

I don't sound like a JW, and I'm not one.

You're entitled to post anything anywhere you feel like, even when it is off-topic.

That you argue as a "Catholic" rather than as a "Christian" says it all - no wonder your points are far wide of what the Bible teaches.

You may not like this, but when you look at it carefully, you'll see that Muslims and Christians do not have any similarities in their worship - from their prophets to God/Allah. You're free to insist they do (and help us back your claims from the relevant sources, not what some people are doing on the street).

It is true, the Crusades and other 'holy wars' in the history of Christianity was instigated and carried through by the Roman Catholic Church - and history confirms it, as well as Catholic authorities. That's what that statement means (unless the poster differs).

In your eyes, if there's nothing wrong in religions that make it an established tenet to kill those who do not follow theirs, good for you: just wait until God tells you otherwise.

So, Catholics are Catholics - hardly do they follow the Christian doctrine as found in the Bible, and the point is often played out in your celebrated and constant use of "Catholic" rather than "Christian": that says a lot in itself. If you doubt me, post just a few samples of your Catholic imbroglio here and invite Muslims to respond to them. At the end of the day, come back and tell me that any Muslim would be so foolhardy to agree with you that you worship in a similar religion.

Hello ope_emi,

I've watched this thread with some interest, but you seem to be the only one on the receiving end of all the come-backs. For one, your answers are ambiguous; and several responses have indicated that, even to the extent of asking you to define your terms.

On the other hand, you have failed to establish your point/concern as to the connection with godliness/ungodliness in this issue. Rather, your answers are more informed by personal feelings and nothing to the effect of godliness. Emotions and feelings of love (as you earlier proffered) do not necessarily define godliness - even godless people are very good at expressing themselves emotionally - and when you come to feelings of love, ahh, Hollywood has more things to teach you than you have the capacity to learn.

Now if you're suggesting that you'd try to control their emotion or feelings of love, that is the most ungodly thing anyone can say/suggest. Let them be - if they love each other, thank God for them . . . even God Himself is happier that people seek to unite on the basis of love than any other thing. And the whole world won't stand still because someone feels that HIV +ve people should be controlled because of your concern about whether it is Godly. As far as your replies go, your suggestions have not pointed to anything remotely concerned with the issue being Godly.

@mamaput,

Sorry to note that the rascality is yours in many aspects. I would not like to be so outspoken, but you don't throw such invectives at people when you haven't seen the blot in your own side of the story.

The thread is an issue between Christianity and Islam, not Catholicism and Islam. You have every right to open a relevant thread for that purpose as best suits you - the issue is not even about Catholicism and Christianity.

If you want to know, the Muslim argument has not been a matter of similarities between Christianity and Islam, and if anyone's too blind to see that, I fear it's you and none other. The strain of arguments so far has been polarised to either of two postions: that Islam is the true religion and Christianity is false; or the other way round. Go read them, and read them carefully.

mamaput:

It is my good right to ague as a Catholic because am one .But if i do that people will tell me am going off point because it dose not pertain to them

I have offered that you post your arguements in the relevant threads; or better still, open a new one to argue your rights as a Catholic against all other Protestant expressions of Christianity - especially the one you decry the most: Jehovah Witnesses. I'm sure they would respond with well prepared arguemts and counter claims to yours.

mamaput:

Well if Christians do not even agree among themselves because they are so blind better said rascal , how much more agree with a Muslim

Please, could you kindly post a single line in the arguments so far to the effect that Christians "agree with a Muslim" as far as doctrinal issues are concerned? There doesn't appear to be any such agreements between believers of the two faiths, and that's why the thread was created in the first place. Even Muslims do not agree among themselves, nor do Catholics agree among themselves for that matter; so what's your headache about that? It's more a matter of differences than similarities, even though the topic includes the latter. a few things and names are mentioned in either faiths: worship of one God, the prophets - Abraham, Moses, Jesus; but they are all mentioned with different interpretations rather than similarites in them. An example is just given in ajia23's reply to mlks_baby's: "While Mary was praying in the temple, an angel in the form of a man appeared before her." As a Catholic, do you agree with that line, and if so, where in your Bible does it say so?

Mamaput, follow the strain of arguments and counter-arguements in this thread; you seem to be taking your vexations to the wrong battle field.

@xkape,

I think what mlks_baby said are quite in order. When you carefully read James 1:27, Christianity was already in existence when he penned that verse. And there's no other faith or religion alluded to in that verse than Christianity. Think about it: what is pure and acceptable before the Father if it falls short of the glory of God, regardless the motive? And who was James addressing - Christians or others? Are you saying that in spite of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, other religious activities are 'pure and undefiled' as well before God and the Father according to that verse in James?

"All the other paraphenelia like places of worship, garments of worship, objects of reverence and so on are irrelevant in the end."

Agreed. However, I don't see what you're disagreeing about in previous posts.

@mamaput,

Hello. I don't follow your reasoning in relation to the topic. What exactly are you trying to say?

And then when you make a point, please understand that some people may not actually be representing the true essence of a religion or faith, as they often are deviating from their stipulated tenets.

Peter was not the rock referred to in Matt. 16:18 - the Rock is and always has been Christ Himself; and it was the confession of who Christ is that the Lord said He was going to build His Church.

Your point does not follow - how do you come round to the idea that Jesus might have learned to read in Egypt, but that His parents did not allow Him when He came back?

You can't compare the two religions (Christianity and Islam) - the Qur'an enjoined prophet Mohammed to wield the sword and kill people in order to propagate Islam as mlks_baby has helped us understand better in her rejoinders; whereas, Christ did not enjoin the killing of anyone for the propagation of Christianity. People still kill in the name of Christianity, but where is that a doctrine in the New Testament?

The examples you're referring to has more to do with Roman Catholic history than Protestantism. I hope you'd not confuse the issues on the topic of this thread; and there's already quite a number of threads debating issues between Catholicism and Protestantism - click on any of these links:

- Are Catholics Really Christians?
- Catholic Statues And Images
- Should We Use Images And Symbols In Our Worship?
- Roman Catholicism -- Christian or Pagan?
- Do Catholics Believe in Being Born Again?

Blessings.

Codes. . .codes. . .codes - they abound in our time, and it's all about "secrets". We heard about the Bible Code; then the mysterious Hebrew Codes; and now the Da Vinci Code, which has become a household name.

Besides, there have been other codes as well: believe it or not, a Scottish composer sees a link between the DVC and the carvings in the ROSSLYN Chapel as holding many secrets (Cracking another code at Rossyln Chapel). Oh well, there's no albino who goes hunting down a Prof to murder in this one; but you might find a surprising note frozen there which Stuart Mitchell has thawed. It's about music frozen in cubed stones, in hope that when played on medieval instruments in situ, will resonate throughout the chapel unlocking a secret in the stone. Prophetic? Predictive? So, what was Rosslyn chapel hiding or suppressing this time?

Everyone uses codes these days. To log in to Nairaland, your password is like a code, otherwise you can't get into the secrets of this Forum. One of the most interesting codes in recent times is the one that keeps everyone going - where we're all trying to unravel the secrets of everyone else. . . of course, in many cases, we don't really seem to have anything at stake.

Christianity is both a way of life and a religion - depending on who is defining what and for what purpose.

We have them aplenty on Nairaland