₦airaland Forum

@babs787,

babs787:
She doesnt need to refer me to any site having conversion stories. As you are having cases in christianity,so also in Islam too.

Then in good exchange all you needed to do was paste the same rather than veer off another tangent by referring to the genocide in Rwanda.

babs787:
Madam, I don't need to reply, If I have to reply her, then she must also reply cases of conversion to Islam too.

If you didn't need to reply, what sense did you hope to achieve by actually replying as you did?

babs787:
Politically motivated or not, killing is killing. Christians clerics allowed tutsis seek refuge in churches then surrendered them to Hutu death squads as well as Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis.

I didn't deny that, and my reply was to point out that you were desperately clutching at the very same things Muslims complain about - killings! The issue was about conversion, and not about killings. And my point is made: the case of killings weighs heavily on Islam and Muslims than it does on Christianity.

babs787:
The reason for the above is that, I do not go against the fact that there are killings in some countries occupied by Islam but at the same time, we still experienced the same killings in christian state.

It is not as simplistic as you're craftily repainting the picture. Who are behind the killings within and outside countries occupied by Islam??

babs787:
It is this same muslims you are condeming now that came to their rescue when christians left them. Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role played by some Catholic and Protestant leaders in the genocide.

It's easy to make such claims; but the cavaliar is blown away by the honest admission of a Muslim scholar who noted that Islam was losing more adherents Christianity than Muslim propagandists would have the world believe.

babs787:
"uncomfortable"?. Muslims do not use that to deceive people just like christians are doing.
I agree that muslims do but not as babyosis has been doing.

"Uncomfortable"?? Yes, indeed. And the case od using testimonies to 'deceive' does not apply to babyosisi's offer of the weblink earlier. If there were any examples of deceit by Muslims claiming that have been converted from Christianity, then you babs787 have played that game on this Forum by artfully doging questions about your previous experience as a Christian.

babs787:
Not false but maybe not sufficient .Well, muslims have never been doing it the way babyosis has been.

Ok, I withdraw the allegation of "false" with an apology - I sincerely do. Sufficient or not, I still don't see what was wrong with babyosisi's offer of that weblink. The worst that could have come from you is either ignoring the link; or declining to comment after having viewed it.

@babs787,

I appreciate your patience and will oblige you later today. Thanks again.

@babs787,

babs787:
@syrup,

why not be honest with yourself. I have tried the site based on your instruction but didnt open. Do us proud by pasting the verses here from the site.

Posted by syrup
NB: please note that on clicking the link above you will be directed to an error page with message: "Oops! Page Not Found!" I asked a friend about this and he said that Muslim websites are not often honest enough to reveal truth. Consequently, in order to get to the page in question, he advised the follow:

If Muslim websites are not opening to reveal the truth:

1. Is the website in question own by muslims?

2. Do they know that you are a christian to the extent of making the website un-accessible?

3. Do the sites open for Muslims but does not for christians?

4. Can they post websites when they know that they will prevent people from having access?

I hope now you can revisit the site from the valuable help offered by 4get_me.


[quote author=4get_me link=topic=40329.msg926554#msg926554 date=1172741511]Hi @syrup,

Your friend may not be wrong, but here's something that might be of help in resolving this issue.

Some weblog sites are configured such that they change some entries or words you post on them. For example, if you type "U R" as one word without spaces between, you would be surprised to read it as "YOUR".

To solve the problem of the error page, please note that one letter in the URL you recommended has been changed when posting on this Forum, and that is why you keep getting the error page returned. Here is the difference:

http://www.usc.edu/debt/MSA/quran/

The highlighted letters ('debt') is the error. Please change the letter 'b' to 'p' when pasting into your browser; so that instead of 'debt' you have the short form of 'department' ('de p t' without spaces). Then follow the remaining instructions advised by your friend.

I hope this would help.

Regards.[/quote]Thank you so much for that great help. I tried it out and found no problems - I could never have guessed the small errors in between the 'b' and 'p'.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=26946.msg926582#msg926582 date=1172742369]@syrup,

That was a brilliant rejoinder. Bless up. [/quote]Thanks, and many blessings, too.

abdkabir:
Goons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea - we know you're the multiple of that.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The fact that christians can twist God's words and claim God's gift all at once amazes me. , This is what I find a mystery. Not tongues.

It shouldn't be such a mystery to anyone the way you often twist God's Word and then accuse others of your trademark.

Bobbyaf:
Christians who incorporate pagan practises in church services, and thus fail to obey God's direct commands cannot qualify to recieve God's Holy Spirit in its fulness. While the Spirit will plead with ignorant christians to leave the system, He can do so much and no more.

I knew you couldn't resist the charge of 'pagan practices' against Christians, as you have done before; and to arrogate to yourself the prime position of pretending to receive God's Holy Spirit in fulness is hilarious. If you cannot sense the promptings of the Spirit to leave your own "system" and face up with the truth of God's Word, then your case is beyond help.

Bobbyaf:
You may not like the way this may sound. but the devil invented your brand of tongues in order to hold you in deception, but of course you're so caught up with it you cannot see the deception.

Thanks once again for your characteristic prejudice and slobber accusation - it's a trademark of SDA members, so I'm hardly surprised. Yet for all that, your academic arguments haven't helped your deceit; and my original statement still stands - "one who is bereft of the supernatural will predictably scorn what he has neither experienced nor understood."

Bobbyaf:
Keep "waving in the Spirit'. Its your choice. I have chosen to stay out of confusion.

Accusing others with sly invectives is a hallmark of the SDA brand of confusion. Again, it's your choice, and you can stay in that brand as long as you wish.

TV01:
Thanks for pointing that out Syrup.

Well, it is human to be misread - and I've made a few as well. Look forward to your inputs.

@babs787,

Many thanks for providing your points to the issues at hand. Here are my answers:

babs787:
1. Jesus is not like moses, because according to christians, jesus is a God but Moses is not.

It is true that Moses was not deity. However, Deut.18:18 was not dealing with deity of Christ - and the Prophet prophesied in that verse was to assume a human role. We read that the Prophet would come "from among their brethren" (which focuses on His humanity) and not "from the Godhead" (which is a matter of deity). In anycase, that verse was not comparing Moses to God at all.

babs787:
2. Acording to christians, jesus died for your sins while Moses did not.

That is true. However, Muhammad was not said anywhere to have died like Moses either. Infact, it would be interesting for you to find me a verse in the Qur'an where Muhammad's death was recorded like that of Moses.

babs787:
3. According to you, jesus went to hell for three days but Moses did not go there.

That is also true in some sense. However, Jesus' death and resurrection formed the theme of the discussion Moses and Elijah had with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (Luke 9:30-31). It is nowhere reported that Moses stood with Muhammad discussing anything at all, no?

babs787:
based on the three unlikes above, jesus is unlike moses, so the prophesy cannot be for him.

In none of the three points above would Muhammad have qualified to be that Prophet like unto Moses.

babs787:
Eight similarities between Moses and Muhammed

1. Father and Mother

Moses had a father and mother, Muhammed also had a father and mother, but Jesus had only mother, and no human father. Therefore, Jesus is not like moses

If human parents were the criteria, then all the prophets would have qualified rather than Muhammad - because they all had human mothers and fathers. Besides, Deut. 18:18 makes highlights a point that greatly point to Jesus as that Prophet: He would be like unto Moses in his cultural identity - Jewish.

babs787:
2. Miraculous Birth

Moses and Muhammed (Pbuh) were born in the normal, natural course i.e the p[hysical association of man and woman, but Jesus was created by a special miracle.

If this point is about a miraculous birth as a criteria, then neither Moses nor Muhammad had anything supernatural in their births. On the other hand, so long as we are looking at Bible texts and not the Qur'an, please note that Jesus was NOT created.

babs787:
You will recall that we are told in the Gosdpel of St. Mathew 1v18 ", before they came together, (joseph the carpenter and mary), she was found with child by the Holy Ghost'. And St. Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her, Mary reasoned ", how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And th angel answered and said unto her, the holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highet shall overshadow theee, " (Luke 1v35). The Holy Quran confirms the miraculous birth too, in nobler and sublimer terms, In answer to her logical question ,"o my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me? the angel says in reply: Even so: Allah createth what he willeth; when he hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, "BE" and it is. ( Quran 3 v47). Based on the above, Jesus is not like Moses.

And how has that established that Muhammad was like unto Moses either?

babs787:
3. Marriage Ties

Moses and Muhammed married and begot children, but Jesus remained a bachelor al his life. Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses.

If marriage and bearing children was a criteria at all, then all the prophets would have long qualified to be the Prophet, and not Muhammad. In the first place, Moses was not a polygamist; whereas Muhammad had several wives. Between these two prophets, how many children did they each have - were the number of children the same?? Muhammad does not pass the test merely on marriage ties and siring children.

babs787:

4. Jesus rejected by his people

Moses and Muhammed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses in the wilderness but they acknowledged that Moses was Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too, made Muhammed's life impossible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the bible - He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not (john 1 v1). And even today, after 2,000 years, his people - the jews as a whole have rejected him. Therefore, Jesus is not like moses but Muhammed.

This is interesting, but let me break it down for you:

#1. Moses also suffered rejection by the Jews initially; and this painful experience was to follow him for most of his life so much so that he named on of his sons Gershom, "for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land" (see Exo. 213-15 & 21-22).

#2. Moses' life was threatened at birth and adulthood (Ex. 1:15-16, 22; 2:15), just as the Lord Jesus' life was threatened at birth and adulthood (Matt. 2:16 & John 5:16). Consequently, both Moses and Jesus had to go into exile for a while before returning to fulfill their divine callings.

#3. Even in their adult ministries, some of the Jews rejected Moses and challenged his leadership and divine calling (Ex. 32:1 & 23; Num. 26:9); as was the case in Jesus adult ministry (Matt. 21;23). However, there are hundreds of thousands of Jews who have believed in Jesus Christ -both in the first century (John 11:45; 12:11) as well through history to date. A few examples: Jewish believers in Jesus Christ and Jews For Jesus.

So, you see that this criteria does not stand in your defence.

babs787:
5. Other wordly kingdom

Moses and Muhammed were prophets as well as kings. By prophet, I mean a man who received Divine Revelation for the guidance of man and this Guidance he conveys to God’s creatures as received without any addition or deletion. A king is a person who has the power of life and death over his people. It is immaterial if he wears crown or not. Moses possessed such a power. He had an Israelite stoned to death for picking firewood on th Sabbath day (numbers 15v36). There are other crimes mentioned in the bible for which capital punishment was inflicted on the Jews at the behest of Moses. Muhammad too had the power of life and death over his people.

#1. Not only was Jesus a Prophet; but more than that, He was born a King (Matt. 2:2; Luke 23:3: John 18:37).

#2. As a King and Prophet, Jesus had the power of life and death over all; and more than anyone else, He demonstrated both in raising the dead and pronouncing divine judgement to evil doers.

#3. The true nature of having divine powers of life and death is not explicated on the use of capital punishment (for if that were the case, then others would be far more qualified than Muhammad in this matter). Muhammad never was able to save anyone miraculously. Whereas, Moses miraculously led the Israelites through the Red Sea and closed the mighty waves over the Egyptians who pursued after them (Exodus 14).

babs787:
There are instances in the bible of persons who were given gift of prophesy only but they were not in the position to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their message were the prophets Lot, Jonah, Daniel, Ezra and John the Baptist. They could only deliver the message but could not enforce the Law.

At best this is an Islamic version and interpretation. However, the names mentioned were not sent with any Law, so there was nothing to "enforce." Secondly, they were not helpless in the face of stubborn rejection; but rather were mighty men of power who brought evil men to their knees without so much as force anything, as in the case with Jonah and Daniel.

babs787:
The Holy Prophet Jesus unfortunately also belonged to this category. The Gospel clearly confirms this: when Jesus was dragged before the Roman Governor, Pilate, charged for sedition, Jesus made a point tin his defence to refute the false charge: Jesus answered , “ My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence (john 18v36). Therefore Jesus is not like Moses.

Jesus did not belong to the "category" that you have devised above. He had a clear mission of implicit obedience to the Father's will - just as Moses was implicit in his obedience. And that is why, even though Jesus had so much power in His word as to make the soldiers fall backwards (John 18:6), He rather willingly gave Himself up for the salvation of the world.

In this 5th point about "Other Wordly kingdom", Muhammad still does not in any way fit the description of being like unto Moses.

babs787:
6. No new laws

Moses and Muhammad brought new laws and new regulations for their people; Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people. Muhammad comes to a people steeped in barbarism and ignorance. They married their stepmothers, they buried their daughters alive, drunkenness, adultery, idolatry and gambling were the order of the day.

From this abject of barbarism, Muhammad elevated them. He gave his people Law s and order they never had before.

As regards Jesus, he told the Jews that he didn’t come with new laws or regulations. I quote his words, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mathew 5 v 17-18)

In other words, he had not come with any new laws or regulations; he came only to fulfill old law. This is what he gave the Jews to understand. Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammed.

#1. In stating that Muhammad came with new laws, you confirm that he rejected the Laws of God given unto Moses.

#2. In acknowledging that Jesus came not with new laws but rather to confirm the precedent one, then you unwittingly acknowledge that Jesus was like unto Moses.

#3. In talking about the evils prevalent in their days, Moses gave the Jews a national status unrivalled and unequalled among the nations of his time (Deut. 4:6-; whereas Jesus also offered a surpassing dignity unrivalled even by Islam.

babs787:
7. How they departed

Both Moses and Muhammad died natural deaths, but according to Christians, Jesus was violently killed on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammad

Many prophets died naturally - and therefore, if dying naturally is a criteria at all, then Muhammad was least qualified to fit the description of the Prophet.

babs787:

8. Heavenly abode

Moses and Muhammad both were buried in earth, but according to Christians, Jesus rests in heaven. Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammad.

Jesus was also buried on earth after His death (Mark 15:46). He rose again and sits in heaven as we await His second coming.

If being buried on earth was a criteria at all, then many other prophets before Muhammad would surely have qualified to be that Prophet long before. This criteria does not make Muhammad like unto Moses.

babs787:
Let me have yours probably listed in the format above or in any arragement whatsoever and after that, we move to john 16 v 7.

Thank you and God bless.

I will oblige you a follow-up of mine soonest. Many thanks and blessings.

@belloti,

belloti:
My brother babs makes a lot of sense to me i don't know why you girls always get him wrong.

I would have to wonder at your input if you can applaud arguments based on false claims. No one gets him wrong; and there have been several appeals to him to be honest in his inputs, even though he has failed to heed that call. Does that make a lot of sense to you??

belloti:
He is a muslim and he explain things from islamic view points which naturally could be contrary to your own spiritual perceptions, i can't see where the conflicts spring from.

Why is it so easy for Muslims to regard Christian views and persuasions as necessarily false and contradictory simply because they do not banter to Islamic interpretations? Go through the threads again and see that what babs787 does mostly is to undermine the Christian faith by denying every tenet that does not square with Islam. Denying Christian doctrines is not the same thing as "explaining" things from an Islamic point of reference.

belloti:
You don't expect him to come here and try to please you by joining you in attacking Islam. Converts or no converts we can only account for our own actions and allow others to be.

I don't see why you should waste space complaining as such if you can't as well appreciate the fact that no Christian would join Muslims in "attacking" the Christian faith. There is a very clear line between 'attacking' a religion and discussing issues. Denying Biblical statements and making false claims (as babs787 has been doing) is hardly the same thing as discussing issues.

@babs787,

babs787:
@babyosis & syrup,

I never missed up anything. I posted the thread for you to say something on the genocide perpetrated by christians in Rwanda. Am sure, if it were muslims, you would have posted stories here.

Your claim here is blatantly dishonest. In the first place, babyosisi was pointing out the issue about Muslim conversion to Christianity and wanted your comments on a link she recommended. Instead of responding thereto, you produced links that had to do with genocide and nothing about conversion. Just in case you forgot, there are far more links available on the net about killings perpetrated by Muslims than you can find in connection with Christians. And for all that, the case of perpetrated killings weighs far more heavily on Islam and Muslims.

The links you gave did not infer that the genocide in Rwanda was perpetrated by Christians.

(a) First link was about a demand for apology from the Catholic Church for not doing enough to stop the killings.

(b) In the second link, a Catholic priest and a nun were convicted for their alleged roles in the genocide. However, it does not report that the 761,000 who were to stand trial for their alleged roles in the murders were all Christians; or that Christians were responsible for the genocide in the first place.

(c) The third link is a BBC report of the same case in the second link; and again it does not state that Christians were responsible for the killings.

An honest look at the Rwandan genocide leads to the understanding that it was rather politically motivated and based on age-old ethnic tensions between Tutsis and Hutus. The same BBC you sourced in your claim has a report titled "Rwanda: How the genocide happened" and you can have a peep and understand the issues from an informed perspective.

babs787:
Secondly, muslims are not christians that go about deceiving people with their converts. Afterall, you babyosis, have read the stories of malcolm x, cat stephens etc. Muslims don't broadcast it like you do in order to deceive people likewise the keeping of Islamic names.

Real converts from Islam to Christianity are not cowards - that is why they openly share their experiences. Only Muslims who are uncomfortable with the reality of such conversions refer to it as "deceiving people". Besides, unless you want to purposely make false claims, it is very clear that Muslims broadcast their converts' stories - both on Nairaland and in other Muslim websites.

For example, kismat as a muslim was very quick to broadcast: Harvard Educated Minister Converts to Islam (a thread on the Nairaland Forum). The Minister in question was from a United Methodist Church. Another Muslim (islampride) reposted another report of 'Why British Women Are Turning To Islam' and several paragraphs down noted that "Many had previously been practicing Christians." Yet, a Muslim website TURNTOISLAM.com carries a conversion story of Jermaine Jackson (Michael Jackson's brother) and mentions "his reasons for leaving Christianity and becoming Muslim."

There are several hundred examples of Muslims broadcasting their converts' stories - and equally "deceiving people" as you put it. Even though you'd have wished it otherwise, at least be honest enough to acknowledge that your claims are quite false.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
U know, All of u accusing one another are just Goons. Dont u freaking get tired. Damn it.!!!

You're welcome to join in the discussion - nevermind that you list as one of the Goons!

@babs787,

babs787:
Why not try to be reasonable for a while.Its not my argument but backslider's. hmmm.
. . .
Small girl, Its not my argument but backslider's.

All the same, you acknowledged earlier that it was between you and Backslider. And in that respect, I have indeed been reasonable enough to intone that your own arguments have been laid to rest. You can only come back in willful pride to deny this - and it won't be such a surprise.

babs787:
Besides, Muslims themselves know that any translation of the Qur'an into any language immediately discarded as no longer the Qur'an.

Please, let me have examples please. I have been quoting from your bible. Let me have same from the Quran too.

There are a few sites and Muslim books I'm acquainted with that make that claim. Unfortunately, I don't readily have my hands on them. However, here's one such Muslim website that makes good that claim: "Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors." http://www.usc.edu/debt/MSA/quran/qmtintro.html (see instructions below).



NB: please note that on clicking the link above you will be directed to an error page with message: "Oops! Page Not Found!" I asked a friend about this and he said that Muslim websites are not often honest enough to reveal truth. Consequently, in order to get to the page in question, he advised the follow:

#1. copy and paste this link to bowser: http://www.usc.edu/debt/MSA/quran/

#2. under "Translations of the Qur'an" click on the hyperlink titled "introduction to the translations"

#3. on the page that opens, scroll down to the heading: "Warning!" and you will find the disclaimer: "Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors."

#4. Notice that the disclaimer page has exactly the same URL that returns an error page: http://www.usc.edu/debt/MSA/quran/qmtintro.html

@gbade. x,

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=40329.msg925254#msg925254 date=1172693706]dude, seriously, do you ever read what you write? Of all the illogical statements you've ever made, that has to be crowned Number 1 [/quote]Well, I can only sit back with a smile in knowing that I'm not the only one who sees through his illogical posts. Talk of reading what he writes - that's another matter entirely.

Right. I was waiting for the moment when you gentlemen would start falling on each other!

#1. sage

sage:
nothing like a fiery Hell exists

#2. TV01

TV01:
I agree with you on this one.

. . . views now in contrast:

#1. TV01

TV01:
Hell-fire is true,

#2A. sage

sage:
Nothing like a firey hell or hell fire exists.

. . .and #2B. sage

sage:
And you guys should not get me wrong, there is hell

Synthesis:

sage: "Nothing like hell exists!"

TV01: "I agree."

. . .then:

TV01: "Hell is true!"

sage: "Em. . . nothing like hell exists!"

sage: "Don't get me wrong. There IS hell!"

@Topic,

Hell-fire is not a twisted truth.

There are a few key concepts that stand out in discussions of this nature:

            (a) eternal punishment

            (b) second death

            (c) Hell

            (d) lake of fire

The Bible actually teaches that there is a literal place of eternal punishment for the wicked dead; and this is described in various appellations throughout Scripture.

Will God Punish the Wicked?

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)

How Long Will This Punishment Last?

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43).

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev. 20:10).

What Is The Second Death?

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Rev. 21:

@babs787,

babs787:
@syrup,

Abraham was never a jew. He was a man from the other side. He was a Hebrew. The descendants of Jacob were Israelites consisting of the twelve tribes.Judah was nicknamed 'jew' so that only Judah's descendants were called Jews originally.

What essential difference is there between being called a Jew and an Hebrew? Every Jew knows that to be "Jew" was to be "Hebrew" -- "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I."

From Jer. 34:9, it is clear that 'Hebrew' and 'Jew' are synonymous.

babs787:
For us to get to where we are going, lets all agree that Jesus was prophesised in the book of moses.

If you can agree to that, what then is the need to belabour the question any further? If Jesus Christ was the Prophet to come, then there just is no rational for anyone debating what lies outside the parameters of that agreement; in which case we can only agree as well that Moses did not write about Muhammad.

babs787:
Give me the similarities between Moses and Jesus that will prove that the prophesy is for Jesus

As above, if as you said: "lets all agree that Jesus was prophesised in the book of moses", then what similarities between Moses and Jesus should be sufficient to prove the case? I'm willing to oblige you; but perhaps you might as well proffer the same with Muhammad.

Hi @TayoD,

Well, thanks for your input - much appreciated. I only hope that babs787 would come round himself and acknowledge the fact that Muhammad was nowhere prophecied in Bible as sent by God.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
@ Syrup

@Bobbyaf,

I hope for your sake that you didn't mean to address yourself - especially since you seem to be so emotive about simple issues.

Bobbyaf:
It didn't have to be addressed to me to detect the level of cheekiness on your part as if you're the only one besides those who disagree with you, being spiritual. 

It's quite obvious you took the trouble to read "cheekiness" in my post where there was none: thus, your overheated reaction  to arrogate to yourself the headmaster clause of reacting to a general response.

Bobbyaf:
I am going the safe way and that is the bible way. You're making out tongues to be what it is not.

Many thanks for your prejudice: which is only typical of quintessential pride.

Bobbyaf:
Ask who? You? It is abundantly clear what your objective is, so why should I ask the obvious. Your intention is to twist the scriptures to suit your beliefs.

I know it is too much for your sort to be humble enough to dialogue by asking questions; so I'm not surprised you were predictably egotistic.

Bobbyaf:
And what is the test of that experience? It is never safe to use a gift as evidence itself since gifts can and have been counterfeited by so-called christians in church.

Where did I use "a gift as evidence itself"? And should one be so disdainful against supernatural gifts of the Spirit just because "gifts have been counterfeited by so-called christians in church"?

Bobbyaf:
How can one know for sure who is born again is not measured by professing to have gifts, as you're advocating. As the saying goes "all that glitters isn't gold"

Please Bobbyaf, can you just be honest enough to point out where I have measured someone's being born-again "by professing to have gifts"?

Bobbyaf:
Too bad if you fail to grasp the true intent of my statement. We are on two different wavelengths here. Your use and understanding of mystery is way different from mine.

That being the case, how does your overzealous interpretation become the all-important one that everyone must adhere to?

Bobbyaf:
All I meant was simply that there isn't anything mysterious about what Paul was talking about re the subject of tongues in chapter 14.

As long as Paul himself said that the tongue-speaker speaks "mysteries" in the  Spirit in I Cor. 14:2, I don't see how your own denials supercede Scripture.

Bobbyaf:
This is the problem verse for most advocates of modern-day tongue speaking in the church. Don't get me wrong I am not agianst tongues as a gift. What I am against is its methodology and how it is viewed.

Your critical spirit against the gift of tongues does not help your defence; and your interpretation of the glossolalia of the Spirit only proves the point that you lack an experience of the gift.

Bobbyaf:
Now if one looks at that verse in isolation, which is mostly done by those pushing the counterfeit tongues, you would walk away with the wrong impression. You'd think based on their argument that this brand of tongue speaking is one between God and the one speaking. In other words its a kind of prayer tool in which no one else seems to understand what is going on. This is the typical pattern in most of these churches.

#1. In the first place, I don't know of any tongues-speaker who studies verses in isolation.

#2. Secondly, my discussion has not been on 'counterfeit tongues'; but rather on the genuine gift of the Spirit of God. I'm least interested in who is "pushing" whatever, when infact God offers His unfailing authentic gifts.

#3. The Scriptures teach that when a someone speaks in tongues, indeed "no man understandeth him" (I Cor. 14:2). Anyone can quarrel with that, but it won't change the facts stated there.

Bobbyaf:
Is that what Paul meant by that verse? Certainly not! In fact the word un-known is an applied word, and does not belong to the original transcript. Besides, since the word tongue means language, then the only word in the paragraph that suggests that the language is foreign is the word mystery. But even if the word unknown was applied to give meaning, then the word mystery only serves to qualify such an addition. In other words if a person gets up to speak in another language and those in hearing don't understand, then to them its a mystery, but to God it isn't who knows all languages.

#1. Even if the supplied word is taken out, it won't change the sense. The tongues there is not referring to a foreign language as you suppose; for there is nothing of a mystery in foreign languages - which even unbelievers can learn to speak. Yet, the gift of tongues by the Spirit requires a corresponding supernatural gift - the interpretation of tongues.

#2. The interpretation of the tongues is as supernaturally endowed as the gift of tongues: which only makes sense that a supernatural phenomenon is necessarily explicated by supernatural means.

#3. The fact that verse 2 clearly states the tongue-speaker utters mysteries "in the Spirit" should help us understand the nature of glossolalia. If it were a foreign language, then it is very possible that the speaker himself understood what he was saying. On the contrary, it clearly states that "no man understandeth him" - meaning that not even the speaker understood what he was saying.

#4. The apostle Paul who spoke in tongues was not writing from merely head-knowledge: he had experienced glossolia in the Spirit and consequently wrote from experience (I Cor. 14:18). However, he also acknowledged the fact that when he prayed in tongues, his spirit prayed but his understanding was unfruitful - that is, he did not understand what he prayed in the Spirit (vs. 14). When he prayed or sang in the Spirit, therefore, he sought to understand what he was saying (interpretation of tongues)~ verse 15.

#5. That is why he had recommended the very same thing that he experienced: "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (vs.13). If it were merely a matter of foreign language, the speaker would hardly need to "pray that he may interpret"; and in all likelihood would most probably seek human means to interpret the divine mysteries he utters in the Spirit.

Bobbyaf:
As far as I am concerned the gift as recorded in Acts 2, and that spoken of by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians is the same gift.

Good for you then. But as far as some of us are concerned, the apostle Paul explained that there are "differences of administrations" and "diversities of operations" in the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:5 & 6). God's Word never said that any gift has to be the same in its administration and operation; and thus, there are clearly divercities in the operations of the gift of tongues between Acts 2 and I Cor. 12 & 14. Infact, we are told that the Spirit gives "divers kinds of tongues" as supernaturally endowed as the other gifts (I Cor. 12:10).

Bobbyaf:
The language as spoken by the disciples was understood by those for whom the gift was intended, both the ones speaking and the ones hearing. What happened at Pentecost was done with a purpose, because God is not the author of confusion. God simply tied in the commission with the gift. All those who would become witnesses would have automatically used the gift as the necessity arose. If there were no need for it then it would not manifest itself.

Pentecost was the inauguration of the Church; and it is to be understood that there were a few things that distinguish Acts 2 from I Cor. 12 & 14.

#1. In Acts 2 there were no interpreters, for "every man heard them speak in his own language" (vs.6); whereas in 1 Corinthians there was also the corresponding gift of interpretation of tongues (I Cor. 12:10 & 14:13).

#2. In Acts 2 we do not read of tongue-speakers edifying themselves or others (see 7 & 12 - "they were all amazed, and were in doubt"; whereas in I Corinthians the tongue speaker edifies himself (I Corinthians 14:4).

#3. In Acts 2 the audience understood the speakers without any interpreters (vss. 8 & 11); whereas in 1 Corinthians tongues speakers and those who hear them do not understand what is spoken (vs. 2 - "for no man understandeth him".

From these it follows that while the gift is the same, its operation was diverse between both passages. Besides, when we consider the other occurences of glossolalia in Acts, it is striking to note that there was a marked diversity of its operation from its exposition in 1 Corinthians. For instance, in Acts 10 we read of those who spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost fell upon them (vs.44-46); and again, there were no interpreters on the occasion, nor was it recorded that Peter and the other Jewish disciples understood what was spoken by the new converts.

In Acts 19, when Paul laid his hands on the dozen disciples and the Holy Ghost fell on them, they spoke in tongues and prophesied as well. When one follows th exposition in I Corinthians, it is clear that a diversity of operation had taken place without an interpretation of tongues on the occasion (vss. 1-7). Speaking in tongues was the spontaneous result of the infilling with the Holy Spirit in those chapters in Acts 2, 10, and 19; and carefully reading the incidences in thos chapters maks clear that there were diversities of its operation.

The gift of tongues is not merely foreign languages; rather, Scripture shows that the speaker utters mysteries in the Spirit that no man understands - until and unless the corresponding gift of interpretation of tongues brings about an understanding of what was spoken.

Bobbyaf:
The bible isn't always clear as to who the disciples met during their witnessing, bu tone thing is clear all those who were born again recieved the gift, but that was only because being born again was the first step to becoming a witness for Jesus Christ. The two go hand in hand.

#1. not all those who were born again received the gift - as is obvious from the outline in I Corin. 12 [vs. 10 - 'to another divers kinds of tongues'; and vs.30 - 'do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?'; and ch.14:28 - 'if there be no interpreter'].

#2. the gift of tongues was not meant just merely for the purpose of witnessing - for the tongues also can be used in praying and singing (I Cor. 14:14-15) as well as edifying the speaker himself (vs.4).

#3. you're the one who actually is predicating the gift of tongues on being born again while falsely accusing me of what you disparaged!

Bobbyaf:
I wasn't accusing you, but seeing you're so self-aware, , carry on.  I am really enjoying this one.

I'm not self-conscious and attention-seeking as you; and it is not amusing that you didn't answer my question. Do I take it that it is really a diehard trait with you to falsely accuse people on baseless presumptions and yet artfully dodge questions asked?

Bobbyaf:
No such thing. You'd like to believe that. Listen again to what Paul said: 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Notice what Paul said? Notice further that Paul hinted that he who speaks in foreign language, or tongues, should interpret. Why would that person need to speak in tongues when the entire congregation already spoke one common language, unless he or she was a foreigner and spoke a different language. In that case that person would need to have his or her words interpreted so that the greater objective of church edification is achieved.

I offer you a few things here, and I've dealt with them already:

#1. there is no indication that the tongue-speaker was a foreigner in I Cor. 14 - that was your mechanical devise of introducing an idea into the text to say what you wanted it to say rather than what it actually says. The whole passage is in context of what occurs among those who belong to the Church in Corinth, and not isolated cases of a "foreigner" visiting the church.

#2. we are not told that "the entire congregation already spoke one common language" - which again is your mechanical devise to warp scripture.

#3. your idea presupposes that the interpretation of tongues is merely one of a foreign language - which is far from the sense of the supernatural gift of the "interpretation of tongues". The gift of tongues is a supernatural endowment of the Spirit: not something that a foreigner merely speaks, because even unbelivers can indeed speak foreign languages without having received the gift of tongues.

Bobbyaf:
Obviously according to Paul it would be fine if all could speak with tongues, but only as the church is edified and not brought into confusion. Listen to what Paul said further: 6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Did Paul say that he came speaking in tongues to himself, or did he say came unto you speaking in with tongues? From that we must assume, for want of a better word, that speaking with tongues was not so much a private matter, but a public matter. Paul explained that he would rather come by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine.

Speaking in tongues was manifested both publicly and privately.

Privately - "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God" - verse 2;
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself" - vs. 4.
"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God"
                 - vs. 28.

Publicly - "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue,
                hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying" - vs. 26.

Bobbyaf:
What we see today is the very opposite. We see the whole congregation being encouraged to speak in tongues all at once. Now, if that isn't confusion and a direct afront to God's word what is?

God didn't consider that 'a direct afront' in Acts 2:4 - "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues"; neither in Acts 19:6 - "when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

If the whole congregation begins to speak in tongues, the Bible does not condemn such: "forbid not to speak with tongues" (vs. 39) in just the same manner that they all spoke in tongues as the Spirit enabled them in Acts 2:4.

Bobbyaf:
Paul continued: 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Notice verse 9? I am not saying it, Paul is, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air

Gentle folks Paul is very clear about what he means by tongues. Tongues means languages, and nothing more. Its not some spiritual or heavenly language if you ask me. Too many people like to put a twist on scriptures in order to justify their beliefs. We must learn to see the context or bigger picture of what the original authors had in mind. This calls for the work of the Spirit alongside scholarship. You cannot throw out academics. You cannot throw out reason.

When you experience the gift of tongues, your academic arguments will cease. Scholarship may be good in so far as one uses it appropraitely; but nothing can be substituted for the experience of the supernatural.

Bobbyaf:
Somehow these christians have been caught up with some type of emotional and hypnotic experience that they themselves cannot explain. They believe that because it happens in church it must be from God, but little did they know that Satan sits in church too. He is the author of confusion and the counterfeiter of the genuine.

And you actually believe that sitting in judgement over issues and the experiences of "these Christians" you know nothing about wraps up everything on the terse idea that "Satan sits in church"? It were better to not make categorical statements about Christians of whom you know nothing, than to expose your deep-seated pride (Prov. 8:13).

Bobbyaf:
Don't get me wrong I am not using this forum to suggest that because they are caught up in this phenomenon that they are not christians. For all I know they could very well be sincere in this matter, but my argument is not about sincerity so much, but about truth.

Try not confusing issues all the more especially when you haven't handled "truth" by condemning people from prejudice. You neither know them nor anything about the experience of supernatural gift of tongues; so prejudging people as you have done is simply hypocricy.

Bobbyaf:
The road to hell is paved with sincerity, and many there be that find it.

Indeed; and it's an irony of sorts that people who make much noise about "truth" are not actually acquainted with it.

@babs787,

babs787:
I have given you some verses from the book of Isaiah that referred to Prophet Muhammed.

And I have addressed the Isaiah passage to show that Muhammad was never in the picture.

babs787:
Now lets address the issue one after the other. First will be Deuteronomy 18v18 and after that we go to John 16v7.

I will like to hear from you, what made the prophesy rests on Jesus.

The prophecy of Deut. 18:18 clearly points to Christ - and I've offered several texts both in the OT and NT to show this.

babs787:
He may be the father of the jews but he wasnt a jew

Abraham was more Jewish than Arab. His son Ishmael was by an Egyptian handmaid called Hagar (Gen. 16:15 & 25:12). Abraham himself was called an 'Hebrew' (Gen. 14:13); and there was an establish distinction between Egyptians and the Hebrews (Gen 43:32).

Abraham's descendants through Isaac came to be known as 'the Hebrews' (cf. Jer. 34:9); and this same name came to be later known as the Jews (2 Chron. 32:18 & Ezra 5:1).

"That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a[b] Jew[/b] his brother" (Jer. 34:9).

Since both "Hebrew" and "Jew" are synonymous, Abraham being a Hebrew was most definitely a Jew.

babs787:
So to you, in the midst of their brethren means among the jews. Please read the construction of the sentence you are referring to.

When Scripture speaks to the Jews in language about their 'brethren', it is usually intended to mean an Isrealite and not a stranger or non-Jew.

#1. ". . .but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour" (Lev. 25:46).

#2. ". . . Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother" (Deut. 17:15).

The Arabs are not considered Jewish by any stretch - and to apply Deut. 18:15 & 18 to an Arab (Muhammad) is to twist Scripture to mean something it never meant.

babs787:
In that case, Let me have your valid points that will make the above prophesy refer to Jesus.

Incase you missed it, here again:

Jesus Himself was that Prophet - as He confirmed in John 5:46 >> "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

Not only so, but others who listened to Jesus were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that He was the very Prophet of whom Moses wrote:

"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45)

"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)

@babs787,

babs787:
@syrup

We are discussing religion and not social benefits or whatever.
Understood?

I hope you saw I was discussing the religion of Islam?

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
My dear I think he got his pastings mixed up lol.

Lol, he's always getting so many things mixed up - and the latest is his confusing me for someone else.

babyosisi:
Soon he'll find that overweight white man that claims to be a former Catholic priest turned Islamic cleric.
(As though all Catholic priests were saved)

You can't blame him much. In Islam, conversion is very closely associated with genocide or killings. So, one can understand his raison d'être for those links.

Gamine:
[quote author=babyosisi link=topic=26946.msg919813#msg919813 date=1172512639]After reading about Muhammad and Islam,my conclusion is that any man that claims to have been a "Christian" and turns Muslim is a pervert until proven otherwise.

Tell them ooh![/quote]Took it straight out of my mouth!

@KAG,

As regards the exclusivity of the Bahai faith, let me point out something in the lines you provided:

Bahá'ís do seek to spread their faith, believing it to be the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity, but they strongly emphasize unity, harmony and respect between the world's existing religions.

This is what the public reader is offered, so that the intrinsic exclusivity of Bahaism does not appear initially - until one takes a more practical and experiential approach to the religion.

In the Westernized version of Bahaism, it is often said that the faith is (and has always been) inclusive. However, the true Bahai still practised with its eastern flavours is quite exclusivistic. The quote above about its claim to be "the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity" presupposes its exclusive undertone: in which case, all other faiths outside Bahaism are just at the other end of the scales - ir[/b]relevant and [b]un[/b]beneficial.

In its inception, Bahaism was as exclusive as Islam ~ "The early version of Bahai faith was as an [b]anti-Islamic faith and it propogated non-tolerance for Islam." ( [url=http://www.ece.rice.edu/~sranjan/history_new.html]please see this website[/url]. )

There are two stages of becoming an adherent of the Bahai faith. I apologise for not being able to point you to an official Bahai website for this; but that is understandable in context of the fact that the intrinsic exclusivity of the religion is not often offered publicly.

However, the second stage (which is of interest presently) involves the signing of a documents that reads:

I declare I have -
"Full recognition of the station of the Bab as Forerunner, of Baha'u'llah as Author and of 'Abdu'l-Baha as True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of Abdu’l-Baha's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the Baha'i Administration throughout the world".

On the surface, Bahaism seems to be tolerant and inclusive of all religions. However, a member of the Bahai faith is expected to reject faiths outside Bahaism and strictly adhere to the tenets of the Baha'u'llah. Failure to comply could have serious consequencies that sometimes may involve legal prosecution!

Enough said. But the gist is that Bahaism is not what it appears to be on the surface; and until one takes a more realistic approach to investigating its true essence, the argument may continue to be surficial.

At the moment they haven't completely broken away from Christianity, so they should still count as one of the many - and sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations, no?

One of the many - sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations? I do not necessarily agree. Universalism is not sometimes contradictory - it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ in principle and practice.

Except it isn't. History is littered with many "convert or else" stories, from the inquisitions, to the recent "convert to receive aid" scandal: http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

A line from the link:
"The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)"

Something strikes me in reading the report: the name of the NGO or Christian group was not mentioned; and the last line aptly describes the incidence ("an exception", rather than the rule).

Oh, I'm sorry, it just slaughtered all of them for worshipping different Gods (see the Old Testament).

I should rather take that as a comic relief. Again, I'm not aware of any case where Jews have sought almost any means to convert people to Judaism.

The secularised West is quickly mentioned, not only because it's the region we are most familiar with, but also because persecution of that sort isn't expected in a region that preaches democracy and secularism. To the question of the Middle East, China and North Korea. With the exception of North Korea, those regions that do discriminate against other religions that aren't theirs, don't usually single out Christianity. From what I hear, most Middle Eastern countries accept Christianity (apparently it's the extreme minority that don't accept Christianity), and it's those that have associated Christianity with atheism and America that despise Christianity. China accepts Christianity too (although it regulates it like it does most other religions). As far as I'm aware, Christianity isn't singled out. I'm not really familiar with North Korea, so I can't say.

True - Christianity isn't singled out. Yet, it is the main official target of the Chinese communist government.

What do they feel about atheism in general? I think North Korea and China don't really mind it, but the Middle Eastern countries do.

[/quote]And that is simply the point - because North Korea and China have an atheistic outlook, religious practices are often at the receiing end of their batons.

[quote]Oh, it really isn't grounds for discrediting, it just further compounds the problem of a lack of any contemporary sources during the time of the happenings.

I don't see how that compounds any problems. The only problem is that any document presented is often excused away by skeptics with the claim that "nobody" outside the Gospel writers mentioned anything about Jesus. Some extra-Biblical authors include Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History III.39], Irenaeus [Bishop of Lyons who been a Christian for 86 years, and knew Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John)]; Clement of Rome (AD 95?); Ignatius (AD 70-110, Bishop of Antioch and knew all the apostles); and Polycarp (AD 70-156, was a discple of the apostle John).

The question I would like to ask is that: considering the dates when they wrote, why is it rather that there's not as much talk about documents written by opposers forcefully declaring that Jesus did not exist?

But they did survive just  as strongly in their times, and some are not so far behind Christianity in terms of acceptance. Certainly the Greco-Roman myths survived for a very long time - some still believe in Zeus; Egyptian mythology also survived for long, still survives, and has adherents as fervent as Christianity; Islam, there's another one; Hinduism has survived longer. So, while you and many in our time don't believe them anymore (in much the same way most don't believe the myths contained in the Bible, from the Genesis creation account, Noah's flood, etc), doesn't mean they don't have fervent believers.

I think you're mixing up issues. In terms of exposure to attacks and proven durability, why did those 'myths' fizzle away? And in terms of historicity, Islam is not a myth.

That any movement would have fervent believers doesn't necessarily make it a myth - and Christianity is not a myth.

babs787:
@babyosis,

thats not new. We have cases of Pastors turning to Islam.

what do you have to say to this link

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4615171
or

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html

and


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6136192.stm

None of the links showed any pastor "turning to Islam".

@babs787,

Your vitriol is a trademark that has followed you all through, especially when your inputs have been laid to rest. Like I said earlier, I really don't mind being called whatever as long as you don't keep falling all over yourself.

babs787:
Shahan in disguise. You just open up your stinking and address people the way you feel.

I would be highly honoured to be called 'shahan', more so because she's acknowledged on the Forum to be a brilliant mind anyone could aspire to. Perhaps my point wasn't far from the truth to have drawn your daggers. However, whenever shahan does show up, I hope for your sake that she'll speak for herself.

babs787:
The brother has never said anything bad let alone calling you names yet you resorted to saying stupid things against him.

How have my response to his put you on spot?

babs787:
Why are some christians ladies here uncultured? They open their stinking mouth and talk anyhow. Mind you, If can not give respect to your husband at home, that doesnt mean you shouldnt giive to those outside.

You just confirmed your trademark.

babs787:
I thought you have been following this thread but alas your stupidity blinded you to the extent of not seeing that the argument has been between Backslider and myself.

I followed the thread alright; just that it is typical of a vexed soul to arrogate an open thread to just himself - like you.

babs787:
My dear brother backslider levelled allegations against me and I cleared it for him yet u open your stupid mouth and started posting contrary rejoinder that my argument has been laid to rest. My argument or backslider's?

Your argument has been laid to rest, babs787. It's only pride that's preventing you from seeing this.

babs787:
Like i have been saying, respect is reciprocal. If you resort to being stupid, babs wont hesitate to accord you the same measure.

The same measure of being stupid? Like I said earlier, you're in a class of your own if you have nothing better to offer.

babs787:
You think you can just open your mouth and address people anyhow here. The same way your derailed brother Havila did. I owe nobody any apology.

It's amazing that you stopped short of calling me 'Havila' in addition to 'shahan'. . .Lol. I did not expect any apologies from you anyhow as long as your have a perculiar trademark.

babs787:
If you stoop low, I will likewise do and if you play funny, babs will likewise do.

I understand your position, and believe me - it is sooo low. But no thanks: you're all on your own.

babs787:
If not that you are blind, how many times have I posted verses missing in some versions but present in others.

Which is precisely my point: degorging issues that have been addressed and pretending you didn't see them. Besides, Muslims themselves know that any translation of the Qur'an into any language immediately discarded as no longer the Qur'an.

babs787:
Honestly, you are really blindfolded. How many times have I quoted verses for you here, yet you come and acts being blind.

I know you really had noting to say here but to vent your pent up vexations for having been laid to rest in your arguments. It's nothing new: I actually consider your lingo mild in comparison to others in your category.

@KAG,

KAG:
I don't know if it's quite possoble to completely falsify a religion (for example, consider the fact Mormonism is still going despite strong evidence against its Native Americans belief), but then again I was merely pointing out that some universally held "truths" have taken millennia to be falsified. In any case, there are aspects of it that have come under scrutiny and have led many to leave the faith.

I'll offer you two things:

#1. I doubt if it is possible to completely falsify Christianity - especially in context of time and theories so far proposed.

#2. That some leave the faith is not unique to Christianity; but that in itself does not disprove the Christian faith.

KAG:
Are you sure? A member of the religion mentioned something along the lines of hoping and praying their Christian and Muslim brethren will realise that they both have it right.

I could not have made my point earlier with any degree of certainty if I had no real understanding of the Bahai faith. The member who mentioned whatever might have expressed a personal opinion than a core Bahai belief or principle.

KAG:
They came from Christianity; they claim to be Christians; that's good enough for me.

A mere claim does not establish the fact that they actually are not a Christian denomination (though I respect your rights to see them so for argument sake). So many cultic groups have claimed a Christian identity, whereas in reality are far removed and antithetical to the Christian faith.

KAG:
While it would be difficult to measure the persecution levels, it is clear they have both received their fair share.

Which I noted earlier:

syrup:
Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

KAG:
It is debatable, but the Christian faith has persecuted many, castigated people of other religions for not sharing their beliefs, and have even forced or attempted to force others to follow the faith by almost any means. In my opinion, Christianity has attacked more faiths than any other. Islam and Judaism are not far behind, though

I'm glad that this is only in your opinion; but please excuse the fact that the claim is far removed from reality.

Judaism has not sought almost any means to force people to conversion. Islam has a well documented history of the case to the point. Christianity has had its share of a bloody history - not because it is the core belief taught by Jesus Christ; but rather the outcome of political exchanges.

In current events, would you still be otherwise convinced that Christians are far more persecuted than people of any other worldview?

KAG:
Yes every religion has had its fair share of attacks, but my arguement is that pagansim and atheism have had just as much (if not more) attacks as Christianity.

Which again is highly debatable in view of current events.

KAG:
By the way, what current trends of on-going attacks? From what I know, Christianity is not only the religion with the most population, it's also the religion practised by most in the Western world.

If we were to excuse the population size of adherents (and not counting those in the West), what would you say in the case in China and Korea, among others?

KAG:
Furthermore, polls suggest that atheists are the least trusted group according to Americans. Many atheists have also been persecuted in America (a democratic country that preaches secularism). You can imagine what it must be like in other less tolerant societies.

Which exactly proves the point. Many people in debates of this nature are quick to reference the secularized West. I'd like to request for a moment that they apply the same cosmetics to events in the middle East, China and North Korea. I only seek an objective and honest response about atheism and Christians in these parts of the world.

KAG:
How so? I can't see how you can get around the fact that nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers. To me it's no different from the mythologies that were reported in fables and are now taken for what they are.

This again lends weight to one of my deep concerns. Did you say "nobody" outside the Gospel writers? Not even one reference?

Secondly, the objection that the Gospels were written "years after" is no grounds for discrediting them. In ordinary events of life, there are many biographies that have been written "years after" the death of the personalities.

How the mythologies reported in fables haven't survived with the same fervour as Christianity is telling enough. To me, there is just no myth about the reality of Jesus Christ whose power has been proven once and again in my experience.

@cute-ass,

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=42134.msg918607#msg918607 date=1172453874]@ Syrup
I think i'm falling in love with you (i'm not a lesbianooo before mouths will start wining)[/quote]Lol. . . no one's going to be loud-mouth about that.

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=42134.msg918607#msg918607 date=1172453874]I couldn't agree more with everything you just said[/quote]Well, I wouldn't say that my understanding matches those of the several brilliant minds who continue to be a challenge to me as well - including yours!

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=42134.msg918607#msg918607 date=1172453874]The funny thing about all these contraditions is the fact that everyday a new one is made, but it just owes to the fact that whatever they bring on we're there tO pull them down.[/quote]You're right about the emergence of new theories - and that has been one of my deep concerns, especially as the theories are inconsistent. I don't think I would have been writing with any measure of conviction in my heart if the promises in the Bible have not been proven in my life.

Many blessings.

@KAG,

KAG:
Indeed. Although sometimes a "universally" accepted truth that has stood the tests of time can still be falsified with time.

Given the 20 centuries of having been subjected to scrutiny, one wonders how much time is required to "falsify" the truth of Christianity.

KAG:

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

On the surface, it appears that Bahai has adopted an inclusive (rather than exclusive) approach; however, in reality it is not so.

On the other hand, Universalism in essence is not considered a 'denomination' of Christianity in so far as it has a repute for very shifty ideologies, more so tending towards secular humanism.

KAG:
Depends on how you define dubious and shaky: last I checked, Hinduism, Buddhism an many other -isms are still around despite the attacks they've also received.

The definition was not mine - that's why they appear in quotes as referenced from jagunlabi. Even so, it is improbable that Hinduism and Buddhism have received just about the same attacks as has the Christian faith.

KAG:
And perhaps no other worldview has attacked and reviled others like the Christian faith.

That is debatably untrue, and would only be considered so by those who tend to make it appear so. All factors considered would not lend credence to that idea.

KAG:
In any case, I would argue paganism of all kinds and atheism are two examples of worldviews that have seen just as much (if not more) attack as Christianity.

Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

KAG:
To be fair, it's hardly a historical text. I mean, there a notable scarcity of extra Gospel sources for the strange happenings of the time, which suggests myth.

It is even more suggestive that the theories advanced by most skeptics to discredit the Gospel are in themselves more mythical.

Hi again @deenmb,

deenmb:
Descendants of Abraham are jews through Isaac and Arabs through Ishmael.

That's a queer admission by a Muslim, because many Muslim apologists have in recent times tried to deny that Abraham was the father of the Jews.

deenmb:
God told Moses that he will send them a prophet like him from among their people, that means not from among Moses people not from Jews but from Arabs.

Okay. Perhaps you should check verse 15 of that chapter in Deuteronomy 18 again ~~ "¹⁵The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."

Is it clear now? The Prophet spoken of would be a Jew; for He would be raised from the midst of the Jews, and not the Arabs.

Even then, when you look carefully at verse 18, you would just have to concede that Muhammad never qualified in any respect as the Prophet like unto Moses.

deenmb:
Is Jesus prophet or God to you

Both.

deenmb:
It is good now that you are accepting Jesus as a prophet.

Even then, being the expected Prophet did not take away from His deity.

deenmb:
There were three questions asked, and all three were answered
1. Are you the Christ?
2. Are you Elijah?
3. Are you the prophet?
We know the Christ, we know Elijah, the other question is who is the prophet

All three questions were answered; and Jesus Himself was that Prophet - as He confirmed in John 5:46 >> "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

Not only so, but others who listened to Jesus were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that He was the very Prophet of whom Moses wrote:

"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45)

"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)

"Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet" (John 7:40).

deenmb:
Holy spirit was said to be around during and before Jesus’s time. The one Jesus referred to came after Jesus has left.

It is the same Holy Spirit of God. When you search through the Qur'an, you only have to admit that Muhammad knew nothing about the Holy Spirit, for he confused him for the angel Gabriel.

deenmb:
If you believe Muhammad confused the spirit for Angel Gabriel, then why doubt the Quran when it came through angel Gabriel.

Because neither Moses nor Jesus confused the Holy Spirit for angel Gabriel - not one time! Moreover, the character of angel Jibril (Gabriel) in the Qur'an is far removed from the real angel Gabriel revealed in the Bible. Muhammad only made a claim about the Holy Spirit being angel Gabriel/Jibril - and for all that, he confused the character and identty of both.

deenmb:
Point it out, I am not going to talk more about this, because we need valid facts.

Looking forward to your valid facts.

@jagunlabi,

jagunlabi:
For the true "son" of god,Jesus does generate a very unusual amount of scepticisms and doubts.And these doubts and scepticisms have been well in place since the very beginning of the religion's inception and history.

Astute observation there. In the same vein, however, the Son of God, Jesus has far more believers in His power, saving grace, and redeeming love than all the skepticism ever produced from the inception of Christianity.

jagunlabi:
That can't be very comforting for christians who believe that their religion is the only route to the kingdom of heaven.

How very wrong. On the contrary, the skeptical attacks have in fact strengthened the faith of true Christians in the Lord Jesus Christ - a very comforting thought indeed. If Christ was never assailed by such skepticism, then He would most probably have passed into oblivion with no worries at all.

It is not the quality of truth to be universally accepted without exposure to doubts and attacks of sorts. Infact, the quality of "truth" is its durability in the face so many attacks, and the fact that it stands strong inspite of increasing attacks.

jagunlabi:
Maybe christianity wouldn't have been under such massive and insistent attacks if it's adherents had had the common sense of readjusting their doctrine  to accept what most people already know that christianity is just one of the routes,and not the ONLY route to the heavens.

#1. The fact that Christianity has survied and grown strong inspite of having been under such massive and insistent attacks should be a remarkable quality of its power. It is really apposite that its fundamental doctrine remains as was given by Jesus Christ Himself - another quality of its power.

#2. It is only inconsistent and weak worldviews that seek a 'readjustment' - and inspite of that, not many people are likely to peg their eternal destinies on shifting grounds. We can be grateful for the suggestion of the so-called "common sense" (which is no sense at all); but how many people really "know" or hold to the view that Christianity is just one of the routes to the heavens?

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

#3. Indeed, people can get to the "heavens" by a thousand and one 'routes' - for there are many heavens (depending on who the seeker is). The space shuttle scientists also speak of 'the heavens' in non-religious connotations. However many are the routes to 'the heavens', there still is ONLY ONE way to the FATHER - and that is through Jesus Christ the Son of the living God.

jagunlabi:
But the fact remains that christianity was built on a very dubious and shaky foundation,which leaves it open and vulnerable to perpetual scrutinies and attacks,putting christians permanently on the defensive.

One more hilarious claim. What stands on 'dubious and shaky grounds' cannot survive massive attacks for over 20 centuries! No other worldview has been severely attacked and reviled as the Christian faith; and for all that, Christians are not permanently on the defensive.

Rather, it is the attackers themselves who have always been on the defensive, as they often have to devise new theories of unsubstantiated claims. Dan Brown? Islam? Liberal theologians? You name them - they are always the ones scurrying about looking for any and every theory to string on their ideologies in order to discredit the Christian faith. It does not seem that their efforts are achieving the desired effects - for since Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, more people have come to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ than those who claim to have lost faith in Him.

jagunlabi:
Maybe it is time for the religion to turn inwards and start a little bit of soul searching.

Thanks for the offer - but Biblical Christianity has withstood all forms of attacks and has proven its promises to many millions.

jagunlabi:
As for Cameron's docu,i doubt if he is going to unleash anything new to the world,concerning the allegedly dubious ressurection of christ,when so much literature has been expended on the possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place.

Again, another Islamized reasoning. When you sift through the volumes of literature purporting the "possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place", the one thing that stands out clear is that they are as widely dilated and cacophonic in their "research". The simple reason is that they cannot bring themselves to trust that the Bible is a trustworthy account of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

jagunlabi:
But i might be surprised.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

@batu,

Well, I can be thankful for three things: (a) there are a lot of intelligent men like you today who appreciate womenfolk; (b) there are a lot more intelligent ladies on the forum than myself who continue to inspire and chanllenge me; (c) God has blessed and will continue to bless people with deeper knowledge and wisdom.

batu:
The reason they will continue contradicting themselves about the Truth i.e Jesus Christ, is simply because: 'You can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie.' Very simple!

Words on marble - I'll have to put that down in my diary! Thank you for that input.

What is interesting about the attacks on Christianity is that the promises in the Bible still prove true in the lives of those who know Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The skeptical debate falls largely on two sides:

(a) those that believe that Jesus was a myth and never existed

(b) those who believe that indeed Jesus existed - but not as recorded in the Bible.

Of the former (a), the skeptics have clearly contradictory tales to tell.

Of the latter (b), a lot of theories are being circulated:

#1. The Muslim Version

Jesus actually existed, but not as recorded in the Bible - which they believe has been corrupted from the original copy which "Allah" sent down. No Muslim knows where the "original Bible" is; nor yet what it actually says.

In the Muslim version, Jesus indeed performed a lot of miracles; but He did not die on the Cross as He was taken alive to heaven. Therefore, there could never be a 'tomb of Jesus' - for how could He have been buried if He never died by crucifixion?

At best, the claims about Jesus in the Qur'an are antithetical to the Biblical narratives, even though only scanty references are made to His life and ministry in Islam's Scripture.

#2. The Da Vinci Version

Dan Brown's version of a Jesus that sired a son is not new, but happens to be the most popular among various other theories in the same suit. The gist is that Jesus was the original feminist whose romantic connection with Mary Magdalene produced a son. His life and ministry are supposed to be quite different from the Biblical narratives; and most of all, Christianity is a big hoax that the Roman Catholic Church has been peddling for centuries.

It is also interesting to note two very important things: (i) unlike many of the other theorists in this group, Dan Brown sees himself as a "Christian" - even though he was convinced that Christianity is a hoax and all religions are lies; (ii) despite his claim that his book was well-researched and reports "facts," it yet appears in the "Fiction" section of libraries and bookstores.

#3. The Cultic Version

Overlapping in many respects with other theories of a 'Jesus' who actually existed, many cultists see themselves as 'the real Jesus' who indeed has come again to complete the works He left uncompleted in the Bible! Popular among these cultists are José Luis De Jesus Miranda, a 59-year-old Puerto Rican 'with impish charm and a taste for indulgence.' There are many such today, and they have no uniform claim other than that they themselves are "Jesus" or "the Christ!"


In all the versions that fall into the second category, a few things could be observed:

1. The Biblical Jesus is discredited

This is evident in Islam as well as the Dan Brown crew. Although believing that there was a Jesus who actually existed, he is not the Biblical Jesus.

According to these groups, the Jesus they present was only human - He was never "Lord" or "God", and the accusation levelled against is that Christians were the ones who ascribed 'Lord' and 'God' to the man Jesus.

2. The Bible is not a reliable document.

While Muslims claim that the "original Bible" has been corrupted, the Dan Brown crew see the Bible as documents with a recent date several centuries after Christianity emerged. At best, neither Muslims nor the Dan Brown camp have been able to verify their claims.


There are several other points to note. However, the Bible is remarkably true to its promises - and millions have proven these promises for themselves. Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be - the Son of God, the Saviour, and the soon-coming King.

@deenmb,

deenmb:
Very interesting posts, while babs could prove his points using both the Quran and the bible, I could not see anybody else do the same.

Then perhaps you have poor sight; or you have quickly jumped to conclusion without carefully going through the threads; or you just want to assume another name for babs787 (if you're not the same person praising himself! ). In anycase, be assured that babs787's arguments have been laid to rest.

deenmb:
Remember brothers, it is only said that the bible has been adultrated and not completely false.

It is "only said" but not proven. We have asked once and again that those making reference to the "original Bible" should tell us what it says in exactly the words used in it. So far, no Muslim has come up with any answers.

deenmb:
Some facts are still intact and it still contain information enough to prove so many things about Islam- the coming of Muhammad and the Quran itself.
May God guide us all.

Muslims are confused about which facts are "still intact" in the Bible. Most of them are ready to deny every verse in the Bible if it suits their arguments; but no one Muslim has come forward to authenticate the denials Muhammad made against Biblical truths.