@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup:Abu Kassim (AS) stated that the best of generation was his, then the next generation and followed by the third. At least to begin to to understand Isla, m is not to apostate it.

The prophet also stated that belief goes up and goes down. When one is experience a down ward spiral in belief, the devoted should not apostate the deen (way) at that time. rather he or she should understand that the protection of God should be seeked in a more intensed manner. This is part of the sign of being a devoted person in the deen of God!

From what you stated, it is rather quizzical that Abu Kassim fits the essential descriptors of a devoted mu.slim before his conversion. He serious religious life before his conversion attests to that. To have shlepped him off as one who was not devoted on the basis of his conversion will mean that your indicators would require revision.

It seems rather curious and out of place that you posit queries and are unable to hold your ground when answers are given. Has it always been that way with you? Just wondering, because most of your threads seem to follow that pattern.

As always, the justcool himself!

justcool:

@syrup
Once again, I m humbled by your gracious manners
Thanks for all your posts in this thread.

I should rather be thanking you for demonstrating a good example of such manners in the Evolution-Creation thread.

justcool:

Please, my dear sister, lets not deviate from the topic at hand into jugding the Grail Message and ABD-RU-SHIN. I enjoy your conversations with m-nwankwo but I think bringing the issue of the validity of the Grail Message and Its writer will deviate us from the point of this thread. I see a situation that leads to animosity and personal attacks that is always frequent on this forum, and I don't want it in this thread.

Okay, I'm sorry. Much as I don't solicit for animosity anywhere, the reason why I felt it might be helpful to mention names is to help my fellow discussant come to terms that nobody is above scrutiny. It's often my style to hold the same rigorous scrutiny out for those who often may assume that they have seasoned objections to the NT, whereas it turns out that they are not so comfortable having their own cherished beliefs and philosophies examined by the same rule.

All the same, I hope we can place personalities aside and honestly examine issues without biases. It's quite unhealthy to hold some people on holy flowerbeds while speaking so freely in disregard againt the Bible.

justcool:

I am still waiting for your reply to my last post. Or have I defeated you!!!(just kidding)

Lol. . . I took my own advice of a few minutes to clam down before posting a reply (review above). Defeating me is quite easy - just state the truth with concrete facts, and I'll zip up!

@Justcool,

Again, yours is appreciated. Here are a few things I'd like to highlight:

justcool:

@syrup
According to the gospel writers, Jesus also said to His disciples "This is my blood, " when He handed them wine.  If we take this litral, then Jesus blood is actually wine and not human blood. You and I know that this is not so. Therefore the expresion "blood of Jesus" does not literally mean the blood that flows through His physical body. The expression, "blood of Jesus" is not the physical blood but the WILL OF GOD or the Divine Truth, which lies in the words of Jesus. God Himself is the Truth which is the same with His Words, Laws and Will. Since Jesus is a part of the God, Jesus is also the Truth and his real essence is the Truth. Therefore the Truth is to Jesus what blood is to the physical body of man. The physical body is made up of flesh and blood, while Jesus is made up of the Truth, which he brought and which is also is words.

The one thing that hugely faults your remarks here is that you are looking away from the very source that speaks of the Blood of Christ (which is, the BIBLE) and making up preconceived notions. If you could show me how indeed the Bible itself teaches what you hold on this subject, it would make more point. It would be irrational of me to just assume your position out of hand by looking away from the very source that we find that same subject well detailed.

Suppose I try to interpret what Abd-ru-Shin has taught on a subject (e.g., the Lord's Prayer). Would you take me seriously if I closed his book and begin to make up my own assumptions? If no, what is the rationale that could give us the confidence that your "interpretation" of the Blood of Christ is as the Bible itself teaches?

However, in direct answer, Jesus' Blood was shed on the Cross - that was real blood as "blood" is understood. To assume that it means something else (like His "teachings" is to draw the same illogical idea that His "teachings" was shed on the Cross instead of real Blood. That would be absurd as to throw out all meaning.

On the other hand, don't not miss the very vital role that Biblical figures of speech play in understanding God's Word. Figurative and symbolic language and representations have never been a problem to those who simply follow the pen of the inspired prophets. A few examples here:

* God Himself refers to His covenant people as His "sheep" (Psalm 100:3 and John 10:27)
* His covenant people are also the "apple" of His eye (Deut. 32:10  & Zach. 2:8).
* And Christians are also referred to as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor.12:27)

Once you fail to see the perculiar context in which these figures of speech are set, you begin to strain at something else and then apply that as the prism by which to test the Bible. That is sadly a weak model indeed and yields absolutely no substance in balanced thinking.

Indeed, the wine is part of the communion Christians share. But why does the wine speak of His Blood in NT symbolic language? The significance is what Jesus wanted us to see - as explicated by Paul:

1 Cor. 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

That celebration is demonstrating something far more than a mere physical display to mortal eyes - it is a shewing of the Lord's death till He comes. God has had no problem with symbols and figures of speech - why should we pretend to be His counsellors and re-interprete His Word for Him?

justcool:

When a prophet(a man) tells you the Truth from God. He is only giving what he received from God who is the Truth Himself. The prophet can only give as much as he can receive from the Truth, and therefore cannot give you the whole Truth. But in the case of Jesus it is different. Being from the Truth and being the Truth Himself, when Jesus tells you the Truth, He is giving you something that belongs to Him, something that He is or something that is a part of Him. This is like giving you His own blood.

If Jesus has given us His Truth as precisely as we find them in the Bible, what then is wrong with receiving that same "Truth"? Why does that have to be re-interpreted to arrive at something else He never said before we can receive it as "Truth"? In all honesty, have you presented the "Truth" by drawing inferences He never intoned? if He did, it would be great to see where He stated what you are presenting.

justcool:

The relationship between Jesus and Truth, is like the relationship between the physical body and blood. The blood makes the physical body, both are inseparable. Once the physical body is rid of blood it dies. The same thing is applicable with Jesus and the Truth. Jesus and the Truth are inseparable. Thefore the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins for many is the Truth which Jesus freely gave to mankind which will lead those that live in accordance with IT to forgiveness.

Think for a moment: how do you defend the idea that the blood that was shed on the Cross was merely the 'Truth' that was shed? What was shed on that Cross - mere words, or real Blood? Why would He need to go to the Cross to "shed" words there when He could do the same in the Temple?

This is quite funny.  The ideas you are reading into the NT are so illogical that I can safely conclude that they are self-evidently untennable. However, to grant you the benefit of the doubt, I still leave it open for you to show me where Jesus' Blood on the Cross were rather "words" which were shed instead.

justcool:

In the revelation, it says:
THESE ARE THEY WHICH COME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION, AND HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES,AND MADE THEM WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
Here once again we see that the saved ones are those that have washed their robes with the blood of the lamb. This means: Those who have purified themselves with the words of Jesus, i.e those who lived according to wording of Jesus and made themselves clean by living it. (Made them white in the blood of the lamb.) You see that the blood is a metaphor for the words of Jesus. The fact that they washed their robes themselves tell use that we must purify ourselves form sin by living according to the words of Jesus. Not his physical blood.

There is no metaphor that displaces the real Blood of Christ in the passage you are referring to. Take this simple challenge: go through the NT yourself instead of relying on what someone has is asking you to assume; then read up what it teaches about the Blood of Christ - then come back and let's talk more on a few bits about the significance of that Blood that you are failing to grasp.

@seeklove,

seeklove:

@ syrup
Dont tell me you humour this guy(ricadelide) action. Read his last post and tell me if it is beffiting of a christian to make false acusations.

First, it would be quite irrational of me to condemn someone outrightly just because you or anyone happens to disagree with him/her. I have been there, and you can be sure that is not a very good spot to place your bet.

Second, a better way would be to take a moment or two and calm down before putting your points across. Even when you may disagree with someone else, it would be more helpful to simply show them how, where and why you disagree. Could I ask in a friendly way what exactly it is that got you so miffed?

Lastly, I often try to take my own advice - it's a good medicine anyday. I and m_nwankwo so far do not agree on almost all points in our exchanges; but rather than be at each others' throats, we could both benefit ourselves by reasoned discussions.

I do hope that my response does not disappoint you. Be that as it may, I really would not join camp by ridiculing someone simply because some people disagree with him. Perhaps you could share with me what exactly is rubbing you on the wrong side.

Cheers.

m_nwankwo:

1. Why will a physical blood have the powers of God or the son of God. The power of God like the forgiveness of sins belong only to God or his son Jesus.

Interesting. If God demonstrated His power by ratifying the Old Covenant by the blood of animals, was it unthinkable then that His own Blood could do far much more in the case of the NT (new covenant)? The power of God is not to be understood as an abstract quality or virtue (forgiveness, mercy, love, etc). His power is demonstrated on His own terms - and since He says the Blood carries such efficacy, it would make no sense to assume otherwise.

m_nwankwo:

2. If it is the will of God that the blood of his son is required for the salvation of mankind, then it follows that Judas, the High Priest and all those who conspired to crucify christ were fufilling the WILL of God. Thus instead of condemnation and woe, Judas should have recieved special grace

In a sense, yes - the the heinous betrayal by both Judas and the priests of the day is said to be in fulfillment of God's predeterminate counsel (see Acts 4:26-28). But did God's grace stop their at the betrayal? This is what people always miss out!

Judas was indeed offered grace - he outrightly rejected it! What then? The logical outworking of a heart given over to wickedness leads to death, for which Judas was known to have taken his own life. The protests some thinkers offer here to favour Judas as a "hero" is only because they have no clue as to what that "betrayal" entails. I recommend you study it in detail.

What about the priests who did not commit suicide along with Judas but were as guilty? Isn't it remarkable that the same people were offer the grace you queried after Jesus rose from the dead? Here is what Peter said to them:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain . . .Now when
they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.(Acts 2:23, 37-39)

These same men who by wicked hands had murdered the Son of God are the same people Peter proclaims the Gospel with such concrete invitation as to state that: "the promise is unto you[/b]"!! How could God forgive such people - and yet grant them to partake of His wonderful promises?

The answer is simple: the grace of God. That is the vital thing people often miss when they assume a scholarship against the NT. It often turns out that such "scholarship" have not travelled the road at all.

m_nwankwo:

3. If the crucifition of Jesus was the will of God, why then did Jesus ask his father to forgive those who crucified him since they know not what they are doing.

Let me first ask you: if you were the one hanging on that Cross, would you have prayed for destruction upon those who bitterly condemned you?

It was necessary for Christ to go to the Cross - and this would come by the hands of sinful men. But the glorious mystery of that work is to defeat Satan on his very presumption (Heb. 2:14-15). Of course, those who condemned Him did not have a clue what they were doing - and so Christ prayed for their forgiveness. The redemption is not a minus - it is a plus! It did not end on the Cross - the Resurrection dignifies it! That is why Peter could make this pivotal statement:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

m_nwankwo:

Do you ask for people to be forgiven when they do the correct thing.

If they did not know what they were doing, by what measure would you be assuming they were doing the "correct" thing?

m_nwankwo:

Why will he even pray for the cup to pass away.

Not because He was unwilling - rather, the mystery of iniquity is beyond our arguments. You and I may argue back and forth about it, but the arguments prove absolutely nothing and does not remove from the fact that He went to the Cross.

m_nwankwo:

Jesus and his father are one and there is no point that Jesus is unawre of the WILL of his father.

No one has argued to the contrary. What I see here are huge problems arising from presumptions you hold to discredit the NT accounts.

m_nwankwo:

4. Is crucifixtion of Jesus a sin or no sin. If it is a sin, how can blood shed through sin wash away sin.

Let's be clear about two huge points here: (a) the condemnation; and (b) the crucifixion itself.

Those who condemned Christ knew in their hearts they were guilty of their act - such was the guilt that drove Judas to suicide. However, the Crucifixion itself was God's mercy for the salvation of humanity. You will never be able to see this until you humbly go back to the significance of the Crucifixion in the prophecies!

Isaiah 53:6 states that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" - may I ask you, dear m_nwankwo if it was a sin that the LORD was showing mercy to you in sending His Son to bear your own iniquity? Of course, you do not believe in this divine exchange, so I propose another: what would you say if God had to put you on that Cross to bear your own iniquity by yourself (knowing fully well that you will NEVER survive its grievious consequence) - would that be a sin or a mercy?

It is quite easy to sit aloof and propound questions against what you don't want to believe in the NT - we can do this with more devastating effect on your cherished beliefs as well if we cared to do just that. However, there are two sides to asking intelligent questions - when you force your presumptions to the fore, take a moment as ask the consequences upon yourself if you applied your objections in your own case.

Christ was not the guilty one - so, would it be a sin that He willingly took our iniquity upon Himself?

m_nwankwo:

If however the crucifiction of Jesus is not a sin, then all those that conspired and nailed him to the cross were fufilling the will of God

As above. However, a small subscript here: have you asked yourself if it was God's will for you to REJECT the offer of redemption as prophesied in the OT and fulfilled in the NT in Jesus Christ? have you ever sat down and asked yourself if by rejecting His offer of grace, you are fulfilling "HIS WILL" for your life?

Questions may sometimes pretend to make us "comfortable" - especially when we call the shots. But hey, you're on spot now, and it is time you faced up to your own machinery: did God ever will that you reject the prophecies and fulfillment of His offer of redemption in Jesus Christ?

m_nwankwo:

5. God admonished man not to shed the blood of his fellow men. How can the same God now require the shedding of the blood of his own son to wash away the sins of men.

Let me quote you a verse: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen. 9:6). This was a principle that was established long before the Mosaic law was given. But it is interesting to note Lamech's cry earlier in Genesis 4:23 - "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt". I have often asked those who like those who are adept at proposing objections with an air of superiority to explicate this verse, since it does not appear that Lamech murdered anyone.

I could go into detail here if you are prepared to delve into this with seasoned contributions as well. But suffice to say that the prophets knew that their is no redemption nor remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). It is not just that blood is involved - but the value of the life is what makes the Blood precious. This is why the Psalmist stated that: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever" (Psalm 49:7-.

Redemption is a vital subject that you will not find satisfactorily explicated by those who deny the value and significance of the Blood. Out of curiosity, let me ask: did Mr Abd-ru-Shin anywhere give an insight into what redemption actually is as set forth in the Bible?

m_nwankwo:

6. Why will God need a physical blood to reconcile mankind with himself.

Already answered, and I'd consider that a repetition.

Cheers.

@m_nwankwo,

Thank you again for being simple and honest - values which I prize so much. However, here are my thoughts to your reposte:

m_nwankwo:

The same verification that I demand on what others hold as Truth should also apply to what I hold as Truth. Others should question what I state as the Truth and give reasons why the disagree. I do not go into personal experiences because that will divert attention from the topic to the person of the discussants.

Fair enough, I'll not belabour that point.

m_nwankwo:

That is why I did not comment when you suggested that I may not have experience of the thing I am denying. That something is written in the bible or any other book does not in itself constitute a proof of the Truth of what was stated therein. Neither does it also constitute a proof of its falsity. That is why it has to be questioned and examined.

I see where you're coming from. I just wish that you could subject Abdru-shin and his Grail Message to the same scrutiny you require of the Bible.

m_nwankwo:

The NT was not written by Jesus himself and that is the point that is very important. It was WRITTEN BY HIS FOLLOWERS and the followers of Jesus are not Jesus.

When I read objections like this, my simple response is: you have just given me a bigger reason why I should have no confidence in what your own trusted source has to say. If it is okay to be suspicious at all of those who were closest to Jesus Christ and experienced Him firsthand, then it is absolutely useless and quite dishonest to assume that another author who knew nothing of Him could have anything of value to offer.

By extension, the followers of Jesus Christ who knew Him firsthand should be trusted far more than someone far removed from Him in age, culture, event and experience. Why should I have the slightest confidence in Abd-ru-Shin's personal opinion of Christ when the same Abd-ru-Shin fails the following qualifications:

* Mr Shin was not Jewish and had no experience of raw Jewish life in Jesus' day
* he was far removed in place, time, and events surrounding the Gospel accounts
* he had no understanding of Biblical doctrines to make any informed exegesis

Would it not be naive to assume that the one who is the late-comer many centuries later could be more trusted than the disciples of Jesus who knew Him firsthand and gave their very lives to testify to what they knew? On the contrary, Mr Shin could only pass for an arm-chair philosophizer who had nothing to risk other than criticize the accounts of those who knew Jesus Christ.

I am not trying to place an unfair spotlight on Mr Shin; but like I hinted earlier, fairness only requires us to be as rigorous as those who query the Bible.

m_nwankwo:

Thus they do not have his powers nor possess the divine wisdom and omniscience which only Jesus have.

Did Mr Shin have these qualifications?

m_nwankwo:

That is why I have to weigh and examine whatever they report. In this very instance, I do not sense that there rendering of the the mission of christ as corresponding to the truth. I will just give some reasons why I do not agree with the belief that the blood of Jesus washes away our sins and is required for salvation. I may go into detail if it becomes necessary

It depends on what you do with something very central to the Biblical faith - prophecies. HOW you handle that subject will show how much you really weigh on the scales.

However, I'll take my time to examine your objections.

Hi ricadelide,

I have enjoyed the salient points you made to help the gist presented by justcool. I hope this would not risk being viewed as a back-patting exercise, but I just could not resist acknowledging some very fundamental eye-openers in yours. Much appreciated, thank you so much.


@justcool,
Among others, I'd also like to say that you gave us some good exercise. Often, I'm of the view that if we all are agreed with something challening to stimulate our thinking, we soon enter a very bored routine of head-assent. So, don't feel put down by the contributions - rather, I'm quite grateful that you opened thi thread.

huxley:

Another origins thread!

Interesting. This is similar to what I've tried to deal with on another thread (Adam being the First Man). One has to be careful to read the chapters in their contexts and see that the order and sequence are not confused.

Some have found it helpful to understand that Genesis 1 gives the summary of the account of the creation, while Genesis 2 gives us some details of the same account. That is not hard to see, and it can simplistically stated thus:

Genesis 1 - what God did - "God created man in his own image" (v. 27)
Genesis 2 - how God did it - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground"


The ORDER/Sequence

Genesis 1
(a) Plants - "grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit" (v11)
(b) Animals - "the moving creature that hath life" (v. 20)
(c) Man and Woman - "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27)

Is this chronology disturbed in Genesis 2? No. How? For the following reasons:

(a) In Gen. 1, we have a definitive sequence very well ordered and attested lucidly in the flow of events. This is evident by the very words descriptive of how God His work

- (i) God said it
- (ii) creation came into existence
- (iii) God examined it
- (iv) the time subscript: evening and morning

- - - -
¹¹"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree . . ." (etc)
¹²"And the earth brought forth grass. . ."
¹²" . .and God saw that it was good"
¹³"And the evening and the morning were the third day"
- - - -

In the Genesis account, the same sequence is followed for all the other creation activity - the reader could read the chapter and see the point.


However, in Genesis 2 we see that it is NOT a chronological sequence that is brought to our attention, and to suppose it otherwise would be sadly dubious. The account in ch.2 demonstrates the details of specific events - whereas, the summary and chronology of events is what we find in ch. 1 as above. For example, we are not told HOW the woman was created in chapter 1 other than a summary that God created them as "male and female" (v 27). When we turn to chapter 5, we find a declaration of the same event - but again it was NOT a chronology there either!

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man,
in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and
blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
-- Genesis 5:1-2

The above is a summary like chapter 1 where we are told that God created man (male and female created he them - v. 27) and then blessed them (v.28).

Chapter 2 does not present a problem as it is not a chronology - to force it to read that way is the very reason why you have such a huge problem to deal with!

@Olabowale,

Thank you for your response. In similar manner, I tried to summarize your important points - there is nothing new that you have added to our last gist. I'm being honest with you, and what I read in yours is saying the same thing stretched out in another way!

Rather than go into long debates and repeat the same illogical sequence again and again, could I hope to see something more engaging, something with fresh notes and points?

Warm regards.

sheniqua:

Love you syrup.
Longtime.
You may know me as babyosisi

Oh my goodness! I have no idea!! Please forgive me. Wetin happen now? _{I'm being Nigerian gradually} I was wondering that you just disappeared after we last spoke about. . . you know what. Well, it happened! And the truth came out that Nigerians are very interesting people!

B-Osisi, my love to you and all yours, Please keep in touch!

@babs787,

Again, your eagerness to argue is admirable - the only thing is that they are still hinged on pride and not humility. Like I said to Olabowale, it's not my disposition to argue endlessly where clear statements are made. To keep arguing against clear statements that Jesus Christ stated is the very ingredient that engenders DENIALS. Is it not amazing how quick a mus.lim is willing to keep DENYING things and yet he does not find this in my post? My approach is different - it is rather to bring the clear statements to bear upon you in very simple terms. Denying them doesn't hurt anyone else than the one who makes the denials - because one is left wondering what such a person really believes at the end of the day.

sheniqua:

My Lord!
How many times will you ask the same exact questions.
Is I'slam synonymous with mumurity?

This is why I have stated simply: repetition ad hominem does not present the discussant as having the ability to be humble enough to see reason.

@huxley, _{(forgive me, I didn't know you were therationa)}

huxley:

For a start, I was simply relying what I thought was an interesting article about a certain community of christians. This guy is by no means unique. There are millions of Xians like him who would rather not read any thing that might "threaten" their faith.

Nothing new - there are as many atheists who are too uncomfortable reading what might threaten their assumptions. That simply demonstrates that what you were applauding here was unhealthy and falls far below an intelligent manner of reasoning out issues.

huxley:

Have you forgotten the centuries when the Christians authorities ban the reading of the bible and other critical books. What did the authorities have to fear?

They did not have anything to fear other than that some misguided leaders acted outrightly contrary to what they claimed they were preaching. That much we can understand - but is that what the Bible taught them to do? I could as well remind you of so many incidents that are unpleasant among the behaviour of some atheists as well - would you justify those same incidents?

huxley:

In my experience, the majority of atheist and doubters of religions have been through the rigmarole of religion and already are familiar with most religious texts. The have found religions to be intellectually unsatisfying and find most religions material particularly unsatisfying too.

That is a personal assumption that I could as well turn on its head and give you direct quotes and references of atheists who remained non-believers but were sad to observe the implications of their arguments.

huxley:

(I tried reading Alistair McGrath's Dawkin's Delusion, but struggled to get past the first few pages.) Such is the intellectual vacuity of most religious material.

It is on record that Richard Dawkins himself in his early debates could not match the intelligence of those he had taken for granted as dullards. He was too assuming - a very foolish thing for a man of his learning! Thankfully, when he sat down in Oxford and discussed with Alistair McGrath, he could have the opportunity to understand that merely ranting against religion did not put him across as an intelligent man! (Incidentally, both profs are products of Oxford).

Try not assuming a default position against religion - you really have no clues if prejudice is the first aid you seek to apply to issues like this.

@babs787,

babs787:

@Syrup

Sister, I asked plgrim a very straight forward and no response till this very moment and you do me proud me responding to my question. Now, you and Pilgrim claimed that the comforter was the holy spirit and I asked and I am still asking now, if the holy spirit happened to be the comforter, has it not been in existence or not because the comforter would be a new being and Holy spirit has been in existence since creation.

I have followed that discussion quite well, and rather than go round in circles and boger into an argument, it would be helpful to simply answer one question: WHO is the Comforter?

It is quite disappointing that you could not produce simple clear evidence for your assumptions and instead went into whether the Comforter has been in existence or not - which is a very offmark query. It is not the "existence" we are after, but rather WHO is the Comforter. That question was answered, and He is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Rather than pretend that this is another argument about His "existence", what have you said about WHO He is? Humility will be very helpful here - it is pride that is at the root of pretending not to have seen a clear statement and then begin to argue endlessly away from a topic. Dear sir, it is of no benefit to you to behave that way.

babs787:

Mu slims may not be able to name all the prophets but there is a verse which if you rwd would explain that to you. God made it known to us that some prophets were mentioned whie some were not mentioned.

I don't think this is a problem at all - those mentioned and/or not mentioned. The point rather is more about what exactly they have taught.

babs787:

Not a repetition but no response so far to my question on has the holy spirit been in existence or not?

See above. This is repetitive.

babs787:

Sister, to be frank and honest with you. I was like you before seeing the light. I have read and still reading the bible and I have some versions at home. There is nothing hidden there and I wish you could read and compare the gospels for a start and realise the truth.

I have experienced the truth in reading the Gospel - I still do. It is sad that every single time I seek to discuss with Mus.lims, the substance of the answers they give is denials. This is not helpful to them at all - especially when you deny something and yet you do not have the alternative to present.

babs787:

Stay blessed

You too.

@babs787,

How are you? I enjoyed the last discussion we had, because it went well just as I had not intended it as a "debate".

However, I'd like to comment on something you stated which (IMO) is clearly an assumption:

babs787:

Jesus could have made that statement but if you would listen for a while, he made that statement to the Jew then and the reason is that he was sent to them and all prophets happened to be the way leading their followers to God, the truth: telling the truth and people see them as true ambassador and light giving direction to those that wanted to know God because people see and get to God through them. (though other prophets might have not said but thats just the truth). Just because Jesus stated it doesnt mean that all other prophets have not been same.

The area of particular interest to me is the assumption highlighted, that "Just because Jesus stated it doesnt mean that all other prophets have not been same".

That is quite wrong, for the statements, life and work of Jesus are unique in every account. Even when Jesus spoke in John 14:6, it is pretty obvious that He qualified His statement so definitively. He did not say that was "a life", but rather that He was "THE Life". So also His other statements: He is THE Light ("I am the light of the world", John 8:12).

The last verse just quoted could not be claimed by any prophet, because it was unique statement:

(a) He is THE LIGHT
(b) He is The Light of THE WORLD

Both in quality and scope, He was unique - that is why we don't find any other prophet making that claime. What they have not claimed for themselves as far as records and scriptures are concerned, you cannot make that claim for them!

Secondly, you cannot attribute the unique status of Jesus' claim to someone else. When I read the Quran, I was surprised to find that Jesus is clearly mentioned there as THE Messiah - He is the only One the Quran recognizes as THE Messiah! Not even Muh.hammad could make that claim for himself - and that is a very definite point to note as to why you cannot make such suppositions for "all the prophets" out of hand.

You started out by appealing that we shun pride - I hope you can do the same and exercise the humility to shun the pride of arrogating something to someone where there is no such claim made for him/them.

Regards.

Well, I don't know if he is seeking only to argue. But ignoring him probably may not be a better option - especially because there are answers to be offered. I may be wrong - you guys have been following the forum longer than I have.

@Olabowale,

It is rather unfortunate that you strain so much to display your selective reading, which is not a good trait for someone who is open to honest thinking.

When I first joined the Forum, I was not confident in discussing Islam with anyone because I knew so very little about it back then. After reading the rigorous debates from so many contributors who are very knowledgeable on the subject, I decided to read the Qur'an for myself. Has it occured to you that rather than go about denying this and that, my approach is to impress your own truth-claims upon you?

That is a serious offer. But it is surprising that rather than calmly investigate the claims and acknowledge their veracity, you assume a closed mindset and keep harping on things about which you have not demonstrated serious scholarship or convincing discourses.

May I extend an invitation to you persoanlly to drop your prejudices and read the Bible with an open heart. If I could read a copy of the Quran for myself, why is it such a feeling of discomfort, uncertainty and fear to pick the Bible up and read it for yourself?

m_nwankwo:

The experience of reality is personal. Therefore there is no point questioning a personal experience. If however that personal experience is postulated as truth, then it has to be questioned.

I agree. And by extension, one would be naive to reject the testimony of the experiences of those who actually know what they are talking about - especially when the questioner has no experience of the subject.

In just about the same way, if you question someone's experience with the aim of rejecting it, there should be a working framework by which your alternative assumptions are made. WHY would you reject what the NT teaches on the subject of the Blood of Jesus Christ and assume that your own hypothesis then substitutes as the "truth"?

m_nwankwo:

My point is that people can believe that they have experienced the blood of Jeusus as salvation. That is there own experience. If however they state that that personal experience is the Truth, then it moves from a reality for the individual to the Truth.

I agree with you to the extent that personal experiences are not to be taken as doctrine. In other words, one should not build a doctrine around personal experiences.

However, it would be a graver mistake to assume that the fundamental doctrines the NT are flawed - for the one who says he or she knows by experience that the Bllod of Christ cleanses from sin is not stating a personal experience as doctrine; rather, they are stating the reality of the doctrine as the outworking they have come to experience.

Let me use another example. Suppose we read in the NT that Jesus gives peace to those who trust in Him. If one should trust in Him and then experience that peace, would it not be naive to then take the position that such could not be "truth" as based in what he/she found in the NT? There, you would not be challenging the personal testimony; rather, in the broader scope, you would be saying that the doctrine is not to be regarded as "truth" - a very strange position to assume, especially when you lack the experience of that teaching.

m_nwankwo:

In this later case, I will question and dispute it and give my reasons why I do not sense it to be the truth.

Which again would be passing your own "sectarian truth" based on what you "sense" the truth to be.

"The Trinity" is not Crone, Mother, and Maid. That might have been "a trinity" concept in paganism, and it was not something incorporated into Biblical faith.

Perhaps not many people have tried to examine the real claims of those claiming this pagan incorporation ideas. Well, I have heard the claim that "everything" might have a 'three' aspect trinitarian philosophy - but that is actually not sound. Let me use a few examples:

Pastor AIO:

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. . . Everything has a opposite and both have a common source, and together they make three.

Actually, the philosophy of the "thesis" is quite limiting - and that is precisely what many 'pagan-trinity' thinkers use as allegories for their persuasions. However, the "thesis"-link has more than 3 connotations:

* Anti[b]thesis[/b]

* Dia[b]thesis[/b]

* Hypo[b]thesis[/b]

* Paren[b]thesis[/b]

* Syn[b]thesis[/b]

* Thesis

There are more, but those are the ones I can presently remember.

Many people have been carried away with the charge that Christianity incorporated this-that-and-the-other from paganism. Please do yourself the favour of querying those assumptions by the more rigorous investigative thinking than those employed by authors who offer unsound scholarship in Christian thought. Quite often, those neo-paganistic theories have not been able to stand their own litmus.

You are occupying a very contradictory position.

The blood of Jesus Christ, which you will not question in someone's experience (of course, on the basis of what the NT teaches), becomes "questionable" on a broader scale. It definitely reveals that the basis of your questioning it is not because you know the TRUTH, but you assume a "sectarian truth" that would be based on your doctrinal position.

Pastor AIO:

No one but a mad man can be 100 per cent confident on anything

Well, the answer has always been the same with the "billions of years" leaning. It is a neat figure, but on what confidence.

Anyway, enjoy.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Olaadegbu:
Unfortunately, Olaadegbu, when it came to the Angel, within the chain, you did not mention the name of the angel! i guess the link kind of broke right there. Unfortunately still, Jesus did not mention a further transmission or revelation to come to you after his earthly existence. Did he? Please show me that very part of your Bible. What he said was not more than a future comforter to come after his departure. If there was supposed to be anything coming from him, he had the chance to state it, but he did not. You are therefore making conjectures.

But haven't your own conjectures been settled in another thread? I can't remember where I once read it when the debate was sizzling, but I remember than pilgrim.1 soundly settled your conjectures about who the Comforter might be - the Holy Spirit. Why is it so attractive for you to keep repeating a question you have failed to address?

Meanwhile, asking for the name of the angel is like asking you to name every single angel mentioned in the Qur''an and Hadiths - have you been able to attempt that at all? And the names of the 124,000 prophets? Why do you try to point at others on issues you cannot resolve when presented to you?

Just curious at this repetitive attraction of yours.

olabowale:

Olaadegbu, will it make any sense that you a Yoruba man be lectured by a Yoruba man about the history of the Yorubas in a Yoruba town, by your lecturer breaking into Celt; a language spoken by Danish people? Thats the example that you provide with Greek alphabets to explain things that happened in Middle east!

Again, this logic is flawed. I'm not Yoruba and hardly understand the language (wish I did, still learning though). But I wonder how an Arabic prophet would have tried to tell us anything about matters which were basically Hebraic, Greek and Aramaic? If the language proves a feat to you, there is no confidence in the case of the Arabic issue.

olabowale:

And you fell for such explanation which Jesus did not make of himself while alive?

I am still waiting to see where you find His statement in everything that He taught.

olabowale:

Who best knew the personage of Jesus among those who thought they follow him? No one could. We can not take the description of Jesus by Jesus as a secondary description of himself in relationship to someone elses.

In that case, you have simply told us not to trust the relationship that Muh.hammad claimed to have offered about his knowledge of Jesus. Muh.hammad was not even a secondhand relative in the Gospel events - he was so far removed from the place, time, culture, events and revelations of Jesus in a personal way that we could apply your own rule and objections have and outrightly reject any account Muh.hammad might have given - even though he claimed they were from "God".

You disagree? Then your objections here are logically flawed.

olabowale:

Very easy to bear falsifiction statements and hang them on a person who we know can not refute it.

That comes across to me as describing what we find in the case of the Qur''an and Hadiths. So many things there have been hung on Jesus - how would you know which was which?

olabowale:

It gives the impression that some are less reliable and even some should have not been printed altogether. Its very easy to make uncorroborated statement, against a soul that is not available to challenge it.

Which strengthens what was stated above.

olabowale:

This is the case with you and your many versions of the Bible.

Even more so for the many versions and translations of the Qur''an.

olabowale:

And when you are challenged that you claim Jesus is God, most of you will say that he is son. Yet there above you call him the first (God, uncreated who creates everything else) and the last (God who will exist and continues to even after death itself dies). Where do you really stand, if you can not see that your position is completely wrong.

I wonder where you would stand if on the one hand you claim to beleiev in ALL the prophets and yet have no clue what they have stated and then begin to make excuses for SOME!

Then, we can then ask again: how confident is your 4 billion years?

m_nwankwo:

The body of Jesus including his blood is not God and therefore cannot wash away sins.

Denials are easy to make; but of what benefit would that be to you personally if you lack the experience of the reality of what one denies?

m_nwankwo:

What evidence have you to show that the scientific metthods used in determining the age of the earth are flawed.

While waiting on that, I'd like to ask: for those holding a "billions of years old", can we get a precise date? It's easy to say that something is "hundreds of years old" - that is saying nothing, until a spcific figure is given.

Then, we can then ask again: how confident would the answer be on a definite date/age figure?

Dear Olaboalwe,

Thank you for the best wishes. I extend the same to you and yours. It's been a beautiful, peaceful day out here - many more to you.

Please understand that you have again assumed something which you will not find in the Bible - there is no place where the idea is given that the Biblical prophets preached 3 Gods. What you have to understand about the Trinity is that it is not a question of "3 Gods" (which incidentally is what people are inclined to believe with prejudice).

However, if you carefully examine the Bible you find that there is something seriously flawed in the argument of those who hold such prejudices. In recent times, if you have noticed, many evangelical Christians are asking their musl.im friends just one question - "Is God known as FATHER or not?" I thought that is a pretty good and simple enough question to ask anyone who wants to examine the doctrine of the Trinity - because no matter what you may claim about God, once you remove this very revelation or deny it outright, you face a grave dilemma already.

What is that dilemma? It is this: you would be declaring that you have no faith in the Biblical prophets.

Then immediately that becomes the starting point, all your other arguments will be pointless. Why? Because the Biblical prophets declared God as FATHER - and to deny their revelation leaves you far removed from their prophetic teachings. Claiming that you believe the prophets is meaningless until you actually present precisely what those prophets have taught. Let me quote you:

olabowale:

We see that the OT mainly Moses revealed Book completely disagree that God Almighty could ever be more than One singly Lord!

Where did you "see" this "Moses revealed Book" that you are talking about? In that "revealed Book", can we find Moses referring to God as FATHER or not? If you cannot answer that basic question, you did not see any "revealed Book", and your discussion then becomes fruitless.

It would be helpful to "see" that document you call "Moses revealed Book". If it is none existent, then where did you "see" it? How can you claim to have "seen" what you have no clues nor the will to present before us?

Blessings.

Adennem:

Dear Lord, . . . .
your blessings with a good life partner to enable me start a new life, that will be dedicated to your glory, and i will in return my testimonies will be a point of contact to my generation.

chrisoml:

Dear Heavenly father. I pray that you grant my earthly father your divine health and healing.

In Jesus' Name. Amen.

@therationa,

This is a very, very poor assessment of an equally important subject. Let me quote a section again:

therationa:

"He now relies on his pastor to make decisions for him as to what is appropriate to read, watch, listen to, etc. That's why I call religion a "surgical-less lobotomy."

This does not represent Christianity at all - and to rely on such a sorry frame of mind from just one person is to manifest an unintelligent attitude. First, let me remind you that there are far more many Christians who are not "automatons" as in the case described above. Second, even Richard Dawkins himself (whose site you posted as a link) does not take such anecdotes seriously - so why does this one supposedly appear on his website?

Just apply the same standard you favoured here to your group. Are there not many people who would rather not read books by Christian authors and thinkers? Just as the 'anecdote' you offered, I also know of some that have assumed an irrational bias against the NT even without first having read it! Why? They also have no rational bases for such a position and have become the same "automatons" to their atheistic highpriests who do the thinking for them.

If religion is the "surgical-less lobotomy" as you intone, perhaps you may help yourself with a bit more broader perspective to understand that often times, it is those 'atheistically' inclined thinkers as Richard Dawkins who are often too quick to shy away from discussing religion - please make a search, it is on record.

Thankfully, not every non-believer and atheist is as brash - I've had honest and friendly discussions with quite a few.

@Olabowale,

How are you today?

Your advice will be appreciated by the seeker, I'm sure. However, there might be a few things that some of us as women would rather handle more carefully.

olabowale:

@Stephanay:
If a person is wise enough to withdraw from all activities, especially the bad ones by secluding hims/herself in a known place, that a person should be commended.

Quite true.

olabowale:

In the case of this "fiance" of yours, he is in a hotel, a location you seem to know. Unless you doubt his sexual honesty because you and him might not have restricted your need for each other before marriage, then your concern is fully grounded.

In reality, trusting or doubting a fiance's sexual honesty is not the central problem here. Even when one trusts their sexual honesty, an "hotel" is not the best place to test that seclusion. My worry as a woman (if we are going to be honest with ourselves) is the location: why must it be a "hotel"?

Consider the fact that he wants to be totally incommuncado during that period. . . in a hotel, of course. Something is suspect here - and i'm speaking out of experience. That is why he should explain why that should be the proper wilderness for his spiritual exercise. If he is not comfortable enough to honestly face up with that question, there is every reason to be more concerned here.

olabowale:

What you need therefore is to marry him, as soon as possible. By your marriage to him, he will have the expectation that you may visit him, so that you are certain that he is okay, in future "three days" of seclusions

This is not going to avail anything. First, men don't like to be pressured into marriage; second, women don't like to rush this important decision in life. Third, marrying him does not remove the problem of his choice location for this get-away experience; and fourth, he definitely does not wish to entertain any visit or contact during that period! (Read the OP again, carefully). This is a serious matter that comes from a woman's heart - we should help this issue in very real-life practical sense.

In all, I'm sure the seeker is grown up enough to know what to do after sifting through the various contributions. My call is this: if one would not be tempted to fish, then don't go strolling near the beach with a hook!

ricadelide:

Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

I was a bit concerned as well, but didn't want to be too forward at the risk of misreading the OP. The following were bits that caught my attention initially:

(1)

justcool:

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified.

(2)

justcool:
Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past.

(3)

justcool:

The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved.

What seriously touches on the core of Biblical salvation are the highlighted parts; and since I did not want to draw hasty conclusions, it was helpful that I went back to check them up again from the Bible - just to be doubly sure.

(1) to work on ourselves as the means of overcoming our own faults in order to become "righteous" is directly contradicting the very reality of why Jesus gave His life for us. This is clear from Galatians 3 -

(v.3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
(v.5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you,
doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


(2) If faith does not justify the believer, he/she is still under the wrath of God - and what then would be the meaning of divine forgiveness? If I must still be punished for my sins, what then was the meaning of Christ giving Himself up for us? Ephesians 1:7 -

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace"


(3) If Jesus' death did not bring us salvation, then we are still in our sins - the result of which is that there is no hope of the resurrection, and the devil would still have power. That is expressly declared in Hebrews 2:14-15 -

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death
he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage.

We have a glorious salvation in trusting Christ. Self-effort (aka 'salvation by works') is futile and painful - it never saves anyone.

More contributions please.