₦airaland Forum

Al Raheem:
you biggest goal in here is to get a muslim person to threaten you.

Nope, and I've received enough threats already!  

Al Raheem:
But you see how they conduct like christ like people

Let's keep our fingers crossed.  

Al Raheem:
silly monkeys

Thank you again O!

Al Raheem:
ther are big difs

May we have them please. I've closed the Islamic sites for now.

Al Raheem:
for real check those sites out.
what is the diff between Hell and the lake of fire

Ahh - there! So, oyb, over to you!

Al Raheem:
what books are u dumb.  If they are neither Bible or Qran don't teach me

Thank you for another palatable accolade. It's just the typical Muslim thing to do at this level.

However, I have been quoting from the Qur'an - that's where SURA 19:71 came from, not so??  

oyb,

oyb:
there is a world of difference between the hottest part of hell and going to hell

Okay, okay. What's the difference between one part of hell and the other?

Al Raheem:
how did i know u was using teaching sites to diss.

Okay, sorry: I confess I was on Muslim sites. And I've closed them promptly as requested. The books, however, I will not close until I'm done.

Al Raheem:
Islam speakin of mary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA_6Hd9LJkg
A muslim mans heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0_4W6JeDzk
MARYAM MARY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlQKGfEjH1o
this is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38hlcBkZeZ8

What about you closing the zombie sites you just complained about??  

After looking at those sites, my question still remains:

Since ALL Muslims will go down into HELL (instead of pass over it), does the Qur'an also tell Muslims how to get out of HELL alive?

Al Raheem:
What does Sheol means?
close those sites u are in u talkin zombies

Fair enough - "those sites" are Muslim sites; but even if I close them, I have them all in books open before me.  

Next question:

Since ALL Muslims will go down into HELL (instead of pass over it), does the Qur'an also tell Muslims how to get out of HELL alive? 

davidylan:
I thought you said going to hell was not in the quran?

Truth is beginning to come. . . and something must perish!

@davidylan,

davidylan:
Perhaps you need to update your quran

Sura (19:70-72) - "And surely We are Best Aware of those most worthy to be burned therein. There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there."

I guess that translation is by Pickthall. Other translators use the softer euphemism of "pass over it" (YusufAli and Hilali-Khan); "come to it" (Shakir and Sher Ali). But as Palmer and Arberry correctly translate the phrase, it should simply read:

              "go down to it" - that is, to go down into hell.

This is confirmed even in the popular tafsir (Islamic commentary) used by scholars in Islamic theology.

Al Raheem:
what does hell mean ?

I understand that in Islamic theology, it is the unpleasant place meant for every that Allah hates.

oyb:
condemning muslims to the hottest part of hell

But oyb, is it not the Qur'an that says EVERY muslim will ENTER into hell fire (Sura 19:71)??  

@Horus,

What really is your fear?

thesilent1:
PS - do people take online abuse serious?

I do. It only makes me feel sorry for those who use such online abuses in the first place - and, my bros, that is a very serious situation for the abuser!!

@ibrahim007,

I don't think that your slobber here was necessary. You Muslims really don't realize that unwarranted statements on people like that only help to feed ill-feelings with fellow discussants.

Without pretences, perhaps some of my posts may have fallen short of Muslim sensitivities. While I've tried to maintain balance (and still do), one cannot avoid discussing issues that we read of in Islam's holy books. Yet, I agree with you and most on the Forum, tha we should endeavour to be avoid unnecessary sparks in our debates.

Let's all endeavour to observe some modesty in debating very sensitive issues.

Cheers all.

@Horus,

While still waiting for a friend to pick me up, let me rush this response:

#1. I may have been wrong with the inference to you about the Rastafari connection. Please forgive me on that. The reason why I made that faulty inference earlier was because I had read so much about them, and most of your posts are typically Rastafari-flavoured; not to mention the fact that the site from where you quoted the article in the other locked thread was from a Rastafari website!

#2. That said, I must remark yet again that you're basing your judgements of a black 'Jesus' on issues that have not basis other than the slants of people who wish them so - especially the Rastafarians. When I return from work later today, I'll offer you the links upon request, just to go through and convince yourself about my persuasions.

#3. Please seek to answer this question for yourself (you don't have to answer on the Forum if you don't want to):

         Are Jews 'BLACKS' - how "black" must the Jews be to qualify Jesus as "black"??

In other words, where do you draw the lines between who is "WHITE" and who is "BLACK"??

Besides, this again would lead to many other questions:


         # why the push so much for the racist undertones in your posts?

         # how does the picture of a "black" Jesus make you a better person than if he were
            of another skin colour?

         # does your salvation depend on skin colour?

         # if what it takes to be saved is being committed to a "black" Jesus,
            where does this take you beyond your arguments?

         # why is it that in all your arguments, you have sought only to make assertions
            that have no balanced, objective reference of FACTS - the same FACTS you've
            been asking and cannot produce in your debates??


Ahh - there. My pal is here. Where I get back in the evening, I'll come ask a few more.

Cheers - and be more broad minded than then "black thing". 

thesilent1:
get over it and "CLAIM" back the knowledge that we "gave" to them, right?!?!

Another toast, my guy!! https://bestsmileys.com/drinking/17.gif




_{Got to run to work briefly now. Catch y'all later.}

Col. 1:15 - Who [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Two issues are presented before us here:

(a) Jesus being the image of the invisible God

(b) Jesus being the firstborn of every creature

When context and language constructs are considered on this verse, the inference that is unmistakable is that Jesus Himself IS the image of God in the fulness of the divine expression of all that God represents. This is also given in Heb. 1:3 where Jesus is called "the express image of his [God's] person". In Col. 1:15, the apostle encapsulates all that the Son has been revealed to be in His Person - right from creation in Genesis 1:26, through the theophanies of the history of Israel, right into the NT. In Christ Jesus, God is fully revealed.

That He is the "first born every creature" is as has been noted, His preeminence in all things - whether they be in heaven, on earth, or beneath the earth.

Horus:
The Rastafarian organisation is recent,(less than 70 years old) but The original and Real Black Madonna IS NEAR 2000 year old.You are mixing everything,so MILLION of worshiper of The original and Real Black Madonna are Rasta?? are you crazy??

While no disrespect to Rastafarianism (I just knew that was where you were getting your doses from), it is NOT the same thing as reading issues with a balanced mind. If the idea behind your arguments was to call attention to Madonna worship by presenting a "black" Jesus, we can smile at that.

However, the Biblical Jesus Christ is NOT a racist Rastafarian. He loves people across all boundaries - whether they are WHITE or BLACK, Rastafari or Rosicrucian, or whoever else there may be.

Arguing perennially about a black 'Jesus' has not helped those who vend the racist undertones in their often baseless arguments; especially so because they do not carefully examine issues and get their facst right before opening their mouth.

Jesus is NOT inclined to racism or the Rastafari movement. It is easy to denounce extreme groups like the KKK; but doing so does not make the Rastafari racist tendencies any better either.

You see what I laugh at, really? The racist tendencies of people calling themselves Blacks and arguing without substance - that is precisely what has left many Blacks beggerly.

I am Black and proud to be Black, especially because I am blessed to read issues beyond skin colour and examine them objectively. This frantic dilemma to interpret everything with racist undertones shows we Blacks who think that way will never free themselves from their shackles even when they are given the keys to uncuff themselves.

It is the type of self-defeating racism from such Black people that will get Africans NOWHERE!! 

Horus:
the Topic here is:One Question For All Christians.
And this question is related to the physical appearence of Yashua (Jesus).
Here again,PLEASE GO TO READ 1 Corinthians 11:14 where it states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. This goes to show you that the image of Jesus with long hair could not be the true image of the true Son of God, Jesus Christ who is in Fact Yashua a Black man.

Again my answer is:

White or Black, Jesus Christ was crucified and died for my sins; He rose again from the dead, and I rejoice that He loves every person regardless of skin colour!

As long as you have confessed Him as the true Son of God is enough for me; and that is why I rejoice that Jesus Christ does not care what skin colour we are before we can trust in Him for God's blessings. I am no worshipper of any Madonna - white, blue, black or pink.

Horus:
1)-In the middle east 2000 years ago the English language was unknow so how can apostles have English name like John,
2)-Did the original texte was in English 2000 year ago In the middle east
3)-If this book is "complete"what was the name of ALL the differents apostles 2000 years ago In the middle east when the English language was unknow to them.
You should now answer all 3 questions,because the answer is in your "complete" Bible.

JOHN - [ Ἰωάννης - Iōannēs, ee-o-an'-nace:  “Jehovah is a gracious giver"];
   Of Hebrew origin [Joannes (that is, Jochanan) - "gift or grace of God"],
which is the name of several Israelites:


                  #1. a son of Azariah - I Chron. 6:9
                    And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan

                  #2. a son of Elioenai - I Chron. 3:24
                    And the sons of Elioenai were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah,
                    and Akkub, and Johanan, and Dalaiah, and Anani, seven.

                  #3. first-born son of Josiah, king of Judah - I Chron. 3:15
                   And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second
                   Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.

That we read JOHN in our English Bibles for the Greek name is simply a matter of translation and interpretation of names. This happens in various other transactions of communication today.

               Afghanistan in English is called Gāndhāra Sanskrit

               Albania in English is called Shkiperiya Romani

                etc.

Back in Biblical times, the occurence of names rendered variously is well known. An example will suffice:

         Deut. 2:11 -  Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

Just because the name JOHN appears in the English Bibles does not therefore mean that it renders the Book false.


Now, can you answer the question that you have been dodging from all this while?

Neither, because there were no numbers in the original Hebrew bible

.

When did the Hebrew numbering system begin?

Horus:
Jesus (Real name Yashua) was Black.

White or Black, Jesus Christ was crucified and died for my sins; He rose again from the dead, and I rejoice that He loves every person regardless of skin colour!

Just to demonstrate the weakness in the previous arguments, I repeatedly asked two questions in the hope that the untenable assertions made may be carefully examined. Let me expand the quotes and repeat the same questions:

Horus:
Neither, because there were no numbers in the original Hebrew bible.

When did the Hebrew numbering system begin?

Horus:
They used the first ten letters and the sifr, which is the zero (0) that was invented by the Arabs. It came from the Ashuric/Syraic (Arabic) word safara meaning “nothing to be nothing” or sifr “to be empty,” from which you see comes the word cipher.

When did the Arabs "invent" the zero (0)?

-----------------------------------

Here I will offer an answer to just the second question:

Did the Arabs invent zero (0)?

Many people hold the belief that the Arabs invented the zero (0) and gave that digit to the rest of the world. If one is to ask when this digit was invented and who invented it, the propagators of this idea haven't been able to proffer precise answers. That is because such people have not carefully looked at the history of the numbering system; and they continue to vend this defective notion for some sympathy towards their unbalanced arguments.

I'd rather let the article sourced from Wikipedia speak for itself, as it encapsulates the consensus of other research work on the history of zero in numbering systems:

The oldest known text to use zero is the Jain text from India entitled the Lokavibhaaga,
dated 458 CE. It was first introduced to the world centuries later by Al Khawarizmim,
a Persian mathematician, astronomer and geographer.

He was the founder of several branches and basic concepts of mathematics. In the words
of Phillip Hitti, Al Khawarizmi's contribution to mathematics influenced mathematical thought
to a greater extent. His work on algebra initiated the subject in a systematic form and also
developed it to the extent of giving analytical solutions of linear and quadratic equations,
which established him as the founder of Algebra. The very name Algebra has been derived
from his famous book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah.

His arithmetic synthesized Greek and Hindu knowledge and also contained his own contribution
of fundamental importance to mathematics and science. Thus, he explained the use of zero,
a numeral of fundamental importance developed by the Indians. And 'algorithm' or 'algorizm' is
named after him.

The first apparent appearance of a symbol for zero appears in 876 in India on a stone tablet
in Gwalior. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as
the sixth century CE, abound.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)#History_of_zero


In addition, we may have to examine the objections to the Indian origin. N. Bubnov, G. R. Kaye, and B. Carra de Vaux are among some historical scientists in the early 20th century who insist that the numbers evolved in ancient Greece (especially among neo-pythagoreans), then were exported to Alexandria, from where they spread first to Rome and Spain in the west; and then via trade routes to India in the east.

It is remarkable, though, to observe the utter lack of documentary evidence of a positional number system in Greece or Rome in the period being alluded to by these historical scientists. If there were, the question here would be: HOW did the Greeks and Romans use this system?

The notion of a Greek origin of the ten Arabic numerals is only as recent as the 16th century AD in Europe. Earlier than that, the pre-Islamic Levant (the geographical area of the eastern Mediterranean that is now occupied by Lebanon and Syria) frankly attribute them to India (e.g., "The Crafte of Nombrynge" (c.1350), correctly identifies them as "teen figurys of Inde.".

Now, did the Arabs "invent" the zero (0)? Hardly the case. Even Arabic sources from earlier times refer to them as arqam al hind -- "figures from India". The Muslims of that day, generally contemptuous of non-Islamic culture, had no problem conceding the invention of this number system to India.

(Please see the Etymological Dictionary, November 2001 Douglas Harper, which cites various other comprehensive sources).


Now, if this is the case that the zero (0) predated the Arabs who themselves attribute it to the Indians, may I ask the propagators of the Arabian zero "invention" to carefully look into the history of the Hebrew numbering system to correct their fallacies? This should also help Muslims who have been peddling the idea that Islam/Muslims gave the world the zero digit.

davidylan:
- I am not a slave, i am a child of the Most High God and a heir of salvation.
- It is not by my power, not by my own might, not by how many salats i can perform, not by my circumbulations neither by how well i slash my body, but it is by the Spirit of God for in Him i live and move and have my being!

plus:

- the Bible promises that I will never enter HELL as a child of God; whereas the Qur'an in Sura 19:71 promises EVERY Muslim must enter HELL - it is an inevitable decree of Allah!!

_{Ask and I'll offer you the real meaning that the English translators do NOT want you to know.}

Hi @Dasuma,

Dasuma:
INSTEAD, SOME YAM HEADS, IDOLISTIC ILLETRATES DECIDES TO METAMORPHISE THIS IQ FORUM INTO A RELIGIOUS CONFRONTATION.

Is this the way you advocate sanity and religious tolerance?

Simply because your assertions are wrong and unfounded. Here are pointers to help you see how:

@Horus,

Horus:
Neither, because there were no numbers in the original Hebrew bible.

When did the Hebrew numbering system begin?

Horus:
which is the zero (0) that was invented by the Arabs.

When did the Arabs "invent" the zero (0)?

Sharn06:
Let's be matured about this. Let's learn more about God(Allah) in a friendly way. Remember to love your neighbor as yourself and do not judge. Thnx

That's great. We should endeavour to learn amicably. However, I think most of the issues raised here have been taken from Islam's holy books (like the question of 'answering nature's call'). If these issues are important enough to be found in those books, they're important enough to be discussed.

The Bible IS and has always been complete.

The Bible IS complete.

Horus:
What is really sad is that people are walking around believing in this book (the bible) whole-heartedly

The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Yes, I believe it wholehearted!!