still we 'r looking for an answer ?! [Archive]

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Read then John 17:21 That they (the disciples) all may be one; as thou, Father, art me, and I in thee, that they may be also be one in us…
It is clear here that God and Jesus are one, but also that the disciples are one in Jesus and God. If Jesus is God because he is in God, why are the disciples then not God, as they all are like Jesus also in God? If God, Jesus and Holy Ghost form one unit of Trinity, then with the disciples included they should form a God unit of fifteen.

But first of all, the Disciples never claimed divinity nor did they make any declaration of this oneness with God. The relationship we have with God is very different from that of Jesus with God in that regard, and as we can see in the Gospels, Jesus revealed Himself slowly to people. We can as well turn to Peter's declaration in Metthew 16 of Jesus being the Son of God. This declaration not merely denotes a belief that Jesus is Messiah--a step that has already been accepted by the Disciples before that event--but Jesus' divine image. As well in John Jesus declares that He is the I AM--which is a very direct declaration of Him as YHVH. This declaration made the Jews angry with Him because He proclaimed Himself not just as Messiah, but indeed as God Himself. When He was accused and sentenced, the charge against Him was blasphemy--a charge which could not be brought about by a mere declaration of Him as Messiah. For the Jewish authorities, the charge is very much deeper: He declared Himself to be the Lord, and for them this was much graver than a mere declaration of Messiah.

Then why do priests accept being addressed as 'father'

And how is the logic of address for 'Pope' where do these ranks fit in the system ?

The term "Father" is used by Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Anglicans, to denote that the priest is head of the and pastor of the community. In effect, as the Church is God's children, so then the priest stands as caretaker of the Church. The analogy that I can give here is that the Pope, bishops and priests are seen as fosterfathers, who guides and leads the community of God.

The King James Version, authorized in 1611, and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrines of the Trinity.

The KJV doesn't actually show the strongest evidence fo the Trinity; how can that be, when the KJV is merely a copy of earlier texts? So you will have to point to earlier texts for it, not the KJV. Remember also that the dogma of the Trinity antidates the KJV by a good 1100+ years.

...that's because you are quoting from 1 John, not the Gospel of John. 1 John was written after the Gospel. It is from the Gospel of John that the quote "I and the Father are One" comes from, not 1 John. So no, that quote has never been expunged from the Bible, in any version. Do get your facts straight before making such nonsensical posts.

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 10:04 AM

But now this part, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and many other Bibles, as it was a gloss that encroached on the Greek text.
I John 5:7-8...

Getting a hold of the Latin Vulgate, which is even earlier than the KJV, there is no such thing as what you claim. To wit:

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

9 si testimonium hominum accipimus testimonium Dei maius est quoniam hoc est testimonium Dei quod maius est quia testificatus est de Filio suo

Actually I quoted until verse 9. Now remember that St. Jerome would not have seen fit to expunge a reference of the Trinity at that point, so early in Christianity's part then (405 A.D.) and the Arian heresy still very much fresh in the mind of the Church. So basically, what it really comes down to is that you have done very poor research.

mkongwe

19-09-03, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
But first of all, the Disciples never claimed divinity nor did they make any declaration of this oneness with God.

Let me ask you again:did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say,Here am I, your God, and worship me?
________________________________________
Mark 12:29 what Jesus himself said:And Jesus answered him,The first commandments is,Hear, O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
As understood, Jesus only suffered physical death, not spiritual.

physical death? so do u mean that he still living some where .he or his soul???

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 10:09 PM

S_R, get a mug full of water. Insert your mouth and nose in it. Don't remove the mug, till 5 mins. That's another miracle right there!

What does Islam believe God in what form is he ?

I don't know. How confusing ha?

silver_ring

19-09-03, 10:13 PM

Shinoda LP

is that you what in your avatar?!

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Let me ask you again:did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say,Here am I, your God, and worship me?

58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58)

Notes on John 8:

12 [24,28] I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh.

24 [58] Came to be, I AM: the Greek word used for "came to be" is the one used of all creation in the prologue (John 1:1-2), while the word used for "am" is the one reserved for the Logos.

And of course, the whole chapter: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm

physical death? so do u mean that he still living some where .he or his soul???

Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19 n it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

It is shown here that Jesus was alive, not dead, and that He preached to the spirits in prison (in Judaism, this prison is known as Sheol, or the abode of the dead, where Jesus went and preached before the Resurrection). So no, He didn't die both bodily and spiritually, but only physically, for we proclaim that the Son of God shall always live and triumph even over death.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 10:28 PM

Milliardo Peacecraft

so jesus is the father and he also the spirite?

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 10:32 PM

Can someone lock this absolutely pointless thread? Silver Ring's just beating around the bush.

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Can someone lock this absolutely pointless thread? Silver Ring's just beating around the bush.

I agree: if he can't get it now, he'll never get it.

Silver: go reread again the article about the Trinity that I have posted.

silver_ring

19-09-03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I agree: if he can't get it now, he'll never get it.
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

Shinoda LP

19-09-03, 10:43 PM

if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

.....

Mr. Hanif Muhammad
University Lane drive
apt. J
Huntersville
North Carolina - 29878

(Works at a Gas station most of the time)

.....

And you're welcome ... Can we close this now?

Milliardo Peacecraft

19-09-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by silver_ring
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

I already presented the evidence for you; it's up to you to believe. Since you refuse to, there is no point in this thread, as Shinoda pointed out.

jack

19-09-03, 11:37 PM

silver_ring
Originally posted by silver_ring
if you havn't evidence s to give so ask some one else to explain

Ask a Jew. I am sure they will be able to fully explain it to you in terms you will be able to understand.

Thug4Life

20-09-03, 12:29 AM

guys please no need to call each others name!
I can see a very intresting discussion here!

questions asked...and simply questions can be answerd!
no need to flame each others!!!!

U dont like the questions asked...(specially if its within the respect lines) dont reply in a personal way!!!!

I ask u all to go through a mature line!
U r all here adults
and we r all here to benifit!

SOOOO
from here down
No off topics
NO flammes
No calling each others names!!!

sanwin25

20-09-03, 02:35 AM

So tell SR to stop acting like an idiot.

The topic has been adequately discussed yet he keeps coming back saying 'tell me again, tell me again'.

In other cases, an answer like 'Because the Quran said so' is consiered the utlimate in scientific logic and we are all supposed to bow in awe and accept your argument.

silver_ring

20-09-03, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I already presented the evidence for you; it's up to you to believe. Since you refuse to, there is no point in this thread, as Shinoda pointed out.

which evidences !!!!

untill now we do not know if jesus is god or prophet

some times they said he is a god and some time they admired as a prophet !!!

mkongwe

20-09-03, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
In other cases, an answer like 'Because the Quran said so' is consiered the utlimate in scientific logic and we are all supposed to bow in awe and accept your argument.

And we are all supposed to accept the Bible as John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us John 14:9:Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hast seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
So finally Jesus asked Philip how to show the appearance of God to the disciple, which is not possible. You should believe in God by admiring his creation: the sun, the moon, all creation, and Jesus himself who was created by God. He said John 4:24God is a Spirit… and John 5:37..ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. How can you see a spirit then? What they saw was Jesus and not God. Also Paul said I Timothy 6:16…whom no man hath seen, nor can see…. so what you can see is never God.
_______________________________________________
Holy Qur’an says (Surah 6:103): Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware.

mkongwe

20-09-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by jack

Ask a Jew. I am sure they will be able to fully explain it to you in terms you will be able to understand.

Why ask a Jew? Let ask Jesus himself, what is the first commandments? Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first commandments is, Hear. O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

shamsery

20-09-03, 10:34 PM

A Muslim judge every religious points based on Holly Qur’an . His outlook is deferent form other believers. It is matter of owns believe, not a matter of argument.
From Holly Qur’an:
O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Lord (i.e. the Qur'an, ordering all that is good and forbidding all that is evil), and a healing for that (disease of ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy and differences, etc.) in your breasts, - a guidance and a mercy (explaining lawful and unlawful things, etc.) for the believers.[Quran 10:57]
Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him [Qur'an 112:1-4]

sanwin25

21-09-03, 03:49 AM

So what you are saying is that you can quote your book and that is a valid argument. But no one else is allowed to do the same ?

Do you know how to spell the word hipokrite ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

21-09-03, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
And we are all supposed to accept the Bible as John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us John 14:9:Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hast seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?
So finally Jesus asked Philip how to show the appearance of God to the disciple, which is not possible. You should believe in God by admiring his creation: the sun, the moon, all creation, and Jesus himself who was created by God. He said John 4:24God is a Spirit… and John 5:37..ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. How can you see a spirit then? What they saw was Jesus and not God. Also Paul said I Timothy 6:16…whom no man hath seen, nor can see…. so what you can see is never God.

Jesus is pointing to God the Father, which no one has seen. But it does not mean no one has seen the Son or the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was seen as in the form of a dove during Jesus' baptism.

Let ask Jesus himself, what is the first commandments? Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first commandments is, Hear. O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.

As I have posted before, coming from the article on the Trinity: The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

So we can see that when Jesus speaks of God as one, it is so, since this oneness of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is made manifest in Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as God Himself. I think, though, that this is not understood by non-Christians, while we Christians treat this as a divine mystery: that we believe that God is at once Finite and Infinite, that He is in the past, present and future all at the same time seems to pose no objection among Muslims, yet is it because to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, indeed as God Himself, will eventually invalidate Islam and Mohammed's claims? I think that's the problem, and there is nothing more we can do about it in that case.

shamsery

21-09-03, 08:13 PM

Mr.Sanwin,
Hope you understand the very simple English.
Valid argument for us, binding for us and not for you.
You can think, as you like.
None should try to impose any thing on others.

sanwin25

21-09-03, 10:25 PM

You want simple English, I will give it to you in Simple English.

If you (ie Muslims) can say that quoting the Quran is a valid argument for you, I agree and that is your right.

In exactly the same way, we (ie Christians) are also saying that quoting the Bible is a valid argument (that is what Milardo has been to patiently trying to do) and you should also agree that doing so is our right.

I am sorry I used a few words of more than two syllables, but I could not find any alternatives.

I hope things are clear with you now.

mkongwe

21-09-03, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Jesus is pointing to God the Father, which no one has seen.

If you can now believe in One God, Jesus, son of Mary, as a Prophet, why don’t you go one step further and accept Muhammad as the Last Messenger? Read with me the shahadah or Witness (Testimony), first in English, then in Arabic.
I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah, Who has no partner, and Muhammad is His slave servant and messenger. Ash-hadu an la Ilaha illa- Lahu wahdahu la shareekalahu wa asha-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of the Trinity as strongly as it rejects the sonship of Jesus. This is because God is One. This is the essence of all monotheistic revelations. Three, by reason and by simple arithmetic, are not one. The Qur’an addresses the Christian in the following verses in the chapter entitled “Woman”
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and his Word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three’ Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him - that He should have a son! To him belongs all that is in the heaven and in the earth, God suffices for a guardian.
The Messiah will not disdain to be a servant of God, neither the angels who are close to Him. Whosoever disdains to serve Him and waxes proud, He will assuredly muster them to Him, all of them.
As for the believers, who do deeds of righteousness, He will pay them their rewards in full, and He will give them more, of His bounty; as for them who disdain and wax proud, them He will punish with a severe punishment, and they shall not find from them, apart from God, a friend or helper. (4:171-3)

Milliardo Peacecraft

21-09-03, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
If you can now believe in One God, Jesus, son of Mary, as a Prophet, why don’t you go one step further and accept Muhammad as the Last Messenger?

There's a little problem with this: there isn't any other prophet after Jesus, at least not in the sense of proclaiming another word from God. That is why it is always proclaimed that Jesus is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last. The proof of burden actually lies upon Islam to prove itself, not the other way around (meaning, Christianity to prove itself). Smple logic dictates it quite easily: you came after Christianity with a new word and a new message.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of the Trinity as strongly as it rejects the sonship of Jesus. This is because God is One.

As much as The Bible rejects any claim made in the name of Islam. But this is all now in the realm of faith (actually our discussion is in the realm of faith more than anything else). You believe in the Qur'an; we don't. We believe in the Bible; you don't.

Arabian Princess

22-09-03, 08:11 AM

I always admired the way MP expresses his points, well said MP.

I have a question, Jews dont beleive in prophet Jesus right? doesnt that makes you in the same place as ours?

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Arabian Princess
I have a question, Jews dont beleive in prophet Jesus right? doesnt that makes you in the same place as ours?

It depends on how you look at it. If you say that they have rejected Jesus, then yes we are in the same place. But then as well Islam rejects the notion of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, so ironically Islam is in the same place as Judaism is on that score.

Arabian Princess

22-09-03, 10:47 AM

MP, Islam beleives in Jesus and that he is a prophet. The only thing is that we beleive that there is one and only ultimate God who has no son and no wife.

if we beleived that Jesus was son of god then there would be no reason for us to beleive in prophet Mohammed!!
we beleive that prophet Mohammed came to correct the followers of Jesus who were not in the right path, I guess christians feel the same regarding Jews, right?

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Arabian Princess
if we beleived that Jesus was son of god then there would be no reason for us to beleive in prophet Mohammed!!

Exactly the point I stated earlier.

we beleive that prophet Mohammed came to correct the followers of Jesus who were not in the right path, I guess christians feel the same regarding Jews, right?

Not exactly. Christians believe that Israel to be the chosen people, whose rejection of the Messiah has caused it to be estranged from Christianity. Nevertheless, God still looks after Israel and calls out to them, as John the Baptist did when he called to pave the way for Jesus. And we maintain that this call not only is for Jews, but for Muslims and other faiths as well. The relationship between Christianity and Judaism is deep that it will take awhile of explanation, but it is best summarized in this way: the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, while the Old Testament proclaims and testifies to the New. In other words, Jesus has fulfilled everything that the Old Testament has said, and that the Old Testament heralds in the Messiah. In terms of Judaism and Christianity, Judaism is the precursor and the antecedent of Christianity, while Christianity is the rounding out and fulfillment of all of the past--and indeed, even of those after it. This is in fulfillment again of all that Jesus has said.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Smple logic dictates it quite easily: you came after Christianity with a new word and a new message.

All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah. This submission in Arabic is called Islam; Islam means also peace, peace between the Creator and His creatures. Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor on you, and have chosen for you as the way of life AL-Islam as your religion. Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus never claimed to establish Christianity on earth and never called himself a Christian. The word Christian is mention only three times in the New Testament and first by pagans and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., long after Jesus had left this earth. Read in Acts 11:26 ...And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch. .
Later by King Agrippa II to Paul in Acts 26:28 ...Then Agrippa said unto Paul Almost thou persuedest me to be a Christian. .
So the name Christian was first given by foes rather than friends. And finally by Peter in his letter to comfort the faithful in I Peter 4:16 ...Yet if any man suffer as Christian, let him not be ashamed….
The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah. But Islam as way of life had been revealed to other prophets prior to Abraham like Adam and Noah. Then Islam follows the way of life for all humanity.
Qur’an 2:136 Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes and that given to Moses, Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).
Qur’an 3:19 The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to his will): Nor did the people of the book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the signs of Allah is swift in calling to account.

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah.

Yes, though it shuld be noted as well that the Old Testament prophets have heralded and paved the way for the coming of the Messiah. Even the Jews believed in this--only the Jews have not seen yet in Jesus to be that Messiah.

Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...

That is well and good; however, that is according to your book, which neither Judaism nor Christianity subscribe to.

Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible.

None mention of those names doesn't mean they have not existed before, does it now? I see this comment to be pointless, since regardless of it not being mentioned it is still there and existed long before Islam ever came.

The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah.

This would be true if only the Jews accept it--but neither Jews nor Christians accept this, and surprisingly even unbiased and objective scholars and historians agree that Abraham was Jewish, or at least of the line of Judaism, not Islamic.

As you can see in history, Islam is very recent, and it tries to assert its claim by discrediting its predecessors--ironically the very same faiths it took most of its ideas from. As I have discussed in another thread here, and which a book this fall will also try to show, far from being Islamic, it seems the first Qur'an as known (and presumably written) by the Prophet seems more to be a Christian apologetic, not Islamic in any way. Do look up that thread here, since no Muslim there has so far been able to refute the salient points made by the book's author.

silver_ring

22-09-03, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah. This submission in Arabic is called Islam; Islam means also peace, peace between the Creator and His creatures. Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 ...This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor on you, and have chosen for you as the way of life AL-Islam as your religion. Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus never claimed to establish Christianity on earth and never called himself a Christian. The word Christian is mention only three times in the New Testament and first by pagans and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., long after Jesus had left this earth. Read in Acts 11:26 ...And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch. .
Later by King Agrippa II to Paul in Acts 26:28 ...Then Agrippa said unto Paul Almost thou persuedest me to be a Christian. .
So the name Christian was first given by foes rather than friends. And finally by Peter in his letter to comfort the faithful in I Peter 4:16 ...Yet if any man suffer as Christian, let him not be ashamed….
The first Muslim on earth is not Muhammad but Abraham who submitted totally to Allah. But Islam as way of life had been revealed to other prophets prior to Abraham like Adam and Noah. Then Islam follows the way of life for all humanity.
Qur’an 2:136 Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes and that given to Moses, Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).
Qur’an 3:19 The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to his will): Nor did the people of the book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the signs of Allah is swift in calling to account.

very true ....well said

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
That is why it is always proclaimed that Jesus is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last

do u believe in any others befor jesus ??!!! :confused:

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by silver_ring
do u believe in any others befor jesus ??!!! :confused:

Since Jesus is the first and the last, as recorded in John, then it would make sense that those who proclaimed and paved the way before Him must be listened to as well, but their relationship vis-a-vis with Jesus is such that Jesus is first and foremost, as indeed He is not just someone who brought the Law like Moses did, but embodied in Him the fulfillment of all that had been written before Him.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

You believe in the Qur'an; we don't. We believe in the Bible; you don't.

We believe in the Quran because, we read Qur’an 2:2 This is the book ;In it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
And we don't believe in the Bible because,if you read the bible
Jeremiah 8: 8 “How can you say, ‘we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made into lie.
Now it is up to you,Islam is based on reason, and you should not just accept it. Even your Bible says, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

mkongwe

22-09-03, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
This would be true if only the Jews accept it--but neither Jews nor Christians accept this, and surprisingly even unbiased and objective scholars and historians agree that Abraham was Jewish, or at least of the line of Judaism, not Islamic.
]

Can you show me where in the Bible it says that he is a Jew?
Qur’an 3:65 O people of the scripture! Why do you dispute about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have you then no sense?
Qur’an 3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim (worshiper of none but Allah alone) and he joined none in worship with Allah.
Please go and Ask Jews to read for you Job 22:21 “Agree with God, and be at Islam; thereby good will come to you.
I'm sure you don't have that verse in your christian Bible.

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-09-03, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
And we don't believe in the Bible because,if you read the bible
Jeremiah 8: 8 “How can you say, ‘we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made into lie.

It is nice when such passages are twisted out of its context. These books are called the prophetic books, since many of them pertain to the coming of Christ, and this passage has often been associated with the very people who went against Christ--the Pharisees and the scribes who were the Jewish authorities of that time.

About Abraham--of course your Qur'an will tell you that he is Muslim--it is to add more credibility in your religion, which compared to both Judaism and Christianity, is but an infant. So to add more prestige, it takes Abraham as its own--nevermind if the true Chosen People of God, the Israelites, came from him. It might be so that, as commonly held, you might be descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son; nonetheless, it was with Isaac, who later on will father Jacob, whome the Lord kept His covenant. And since Jesus is of this lineage, then rightfully this has more weight than those of the line of Ishmael, whom God has not had a covenant with. So you can see why Islam can never claim the very position it tries to take from Judaism and Christianity--the simple fact that it is of Israel, in the House of David, that this King shall be born, not of any other house or lineage.

Job 22:21--neither does the Jewish version of it has that, the part pertaining to Islam. For one, it is an affront to the ancient religion which you try to say you came from (and curiously at the same time you try to repudate). For another, Islam never was and never will be at the same time that Job was. Again, proof of that is that the Jews don't recognize Islam, nor even claim Islam was already there at the time of Abraham. Do bear in mind that if you as much as even insinuate this notion to them, you'd be lucky if they simply laugh you out of their presence. I wouldn't be surprised if they get mad. As I've said, the objective and unbiased scholar and historian does not accept this view as held by Islam for the simple reason that archeological evidence often points to Jewish Israel as we often read in the Old Testament--not to any Islamic kingdom or people.

IceTea

23-09-03, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Silver ring, if you can't understand, then read, and read, and read. Not open a topic that serves no other purpose than to make such comments as "Is the Trinity 3 Gods?" I think we've explained to you so many times about it. Go and read about the Trinity here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm.

Any human being can recognize that the concept of Trinity is a human made theory and Allah rejected it as stated the holy book (the Quran).

Shinoda LP

23-09-03, 07:41 PM

Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

My comment shouldn't come across as rude to you, because you directly mentioned Christianity as a man-made religion, and to me Islam is one too.

Good day!

IceTea

23-09-03, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

My comment shouldn't come across as rude to you, because you directly mentioned Christianity as a man-made religion, and to me Islam is one too.

Good day!

I quoted below verse incase you didn't came across it before:

"O People of the Book ! exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of ALLAH anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of ALLAH, and a fulfillment of HIS word which HE has sent down to Mary, and a mercy from HIM. So believe in ALLAH and HIS Messengers, and say not, `They are three.' Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, ALLAH is the only One God. Holy is HE, far above having a son. To HIM belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is ALLAH as a guardian."

And another verse:

"They surely disbelieve who say, `ALLAH is the third of three;' there is no god but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely befall those of them that disbelieve."

mkongwe

23-09-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
It might be so that, as commonly held, you might be descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son; nonetheless, it was with Isaac, who later on will father Jacob, whome the Lord kept His covenant. And since Jesus is of this lineage, then rightfully this has more weight than those of the line of Ishmael, whom God has not had a covenant with.

Islamic states that the covenant between God, Abraham and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. And on the same day were Abraham, Ishmael and all men of the household circumcised while Isaac was even born yet (Genesis 17:24-27: << And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him>>.
A year later Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4-5): And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety-nine and Ishmael thirteen years old. Isaac was born a year later when Abraham was a hundred years old.
The descendants of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), including all Muslim, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their prayers at least five times a day the Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his descendants with the praise of Muhammad (PBUH) and his descendants.

Qur’an 17:15 Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would we visit with our wrath until we had sent a Messenger (to give warning).
The Bible states (Genesis 15:4): And behold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Elizier of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. So Ishmael was also heir.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17: If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his son to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is he. Islam does not deny God’s blessing on Isaac and his descendant, but the son of promise is Ishmael from whom later arose Muhammad (PBUH) as the seal of Prophets.

mkongwe

23-09-03, 11:14 PM

mkongwe

24-09-03, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Yes, He is. As the Athanasian Creed states:

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God"

Please read Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Compare now with Luke 1:26-27
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
So in the miraculous birth of Jesus, Matthew mentioned the Holy Ghost and Luke mentioned the angel Gabriel. What is the Holy Ghost then?

Milliardo Peacecraft

24-09-03, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Shinoda LP
Allah didn't reject it. The humans who made up Islam, and those who wrote the Quran rejected it.

Well said, Shinoda.

On Abraham again: you only point to circumcision. This is not the covenant that we speak of. We find in Genesis 21:12 why Ishmael did not receive the covenant promised to Isaac and Israel: "Do not be distressed about the boy (Ishmael) or about your slave woman (his mother). Heed the demands of Sarah (Isaac's mother), no matter what she is asking you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name." Though in verse 13 we find that through Ishmael will be made a great nation (possibly Egypt or the other tribes beside Israel), we of course will find later that these people will set themselves against Israel, and were punished even more by God than Israel was. So we can see clearly from where the lineage and prestige shall come from, from where the Messiah came. It is from the throne of David, the House of Israel, not another nation nor people.

Matthew 15:9--actually, you twist the very meaning of this passage out of its context. I do not know whether you read why Jesus quoted it. Anyway, Jesus quotes Isaiah in here (Matthew 15:8-9) as a charge against the Pharisees and scribes because they question Jesus why His Disciples do not wash their hands before the meal. Jesus charge them with hypocrisy because they pile up laws upon people without them following it themselve. Time and again Jesus will level this charge against them.

Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1: 26-27. I do not know what your problem here is. The first one, in Matthew, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit is one of the Persons in the Trinity--the Spirit guides the Church and was sent as protector of the Church. This passage foreshadows that by showing that the Holy Spirit gave Jesus to Mary, and indeed by doing so God gives Jesus to us. In Luke 1: 26-27 it simply states that the angel Gabriel announces to Mary of this event which occured to her, as we can see that indeed he says: "Hail full of grace! The Lord is with you." Two things we can surmise in this greeting: one, that Jesus is already with her, and that two through the Holy Spirit (as recorded in Matthew) God has brought Jesus to her. So really the two passages copliment each other.

mkongwe

24-09-03, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
" Though in verse 13 we find that through Ishmael will be made a great nation
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

because they question Jesus why His Disciples do not wash their hands before the meal.
Do you wash your hand before meals? or Do you worship Jesus?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

the Holy Spirit gave Jesus to Mary,... that Jesus is already with her,... God has brought Jesus to her.
If you mention three person are sitting together or eating togethr,does it mean that they are forming one person?

Milliardo Peacecraft

24-09-03, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

As far as I can tell there is no more mention of Ishmael or his sons afterwards; the focus has now been towards Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Proof of that is that even the Jews know the lineage to be Abraham-Isaac-Jacob. You are free to look for more references about Ishmael in the Bible if you want to, but it will not be much of a successful search.

Do you wash your hand before meals? or Do you worship Jesus?

Yes, I wash my hands before meansl, but that is to keep clean and be free of germs, not because I will be ritually impure. The Pharisees and scribes charge Jesus and His Disciples of ritual impurity--this is important in Judaism because one cannot participate in the Sabbath and feasts like Passover if one were ritually impure. This is why Jesus called the hypocrites and quoted the verse in Isaiah about them--because they use religion as a means to levy such hardships on people and draw them away from God. As you can see the quoting of Jesus has nothing to do about Himself, but was used as a charge against the Pharisees. Do use the Bible properly if you will make such quotes next time, and read the verse in relation to the context of the whole narrative to understand. What you do is called proof texting--the use of a verse or passage not designed for the puprose at hand, thus twisting the very meaning of the verse intended.

J
esus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Do read carefully again my comment above--the vain worship specified by Jesus has to do with the ritual of washing and being clean before the Sabbath and other important Jewish feasts. Being ritually pure is very big among the Pharisees, thus Jesus charged them with hypocrisy because what they do is merely outward gestures. Ironically, the quote you just mentioned actually points to the fact that by what the Pharisees are doing, they draw people away from Jesus, as Jesus teaches these outward gestures are the ones not needed, but what is important is what comes out of a person--if you will follow the passage to its conclusion in Matthew 15:20. As you can see, you are really losing this one badly mkongwe, because you desperately use passages out of context to disprove, but in so doing you do not read first the context by which such quotes have been used. Like I said, read and understand.

If you mention three person are sitting together or eating togethr,does it mean that they are forming one person?

Depends on the situation. We know that people who come together and form a corporation do form a single legal entity, which even in law is addressed to like a person. And in context people coming together do form as one person, which is called bonding and harmony. This unity of persons are contextual in nature though. It is wholly different when one speaks of the Trinity, as there the unity made is real and palpable, not just in context.

mkongwe

25-09-03, 07:19 AM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft, Proof of that is that even the Jews know the lineage to be Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.

Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

This is why Jesus called the hypocrites and quoted the verse in Isaiah about them--
Matthew 15:9 Did you read wash,should you read worship,reason worship is nothing to do with wash your hand before meals,let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is wholly different when one speaks of the Trinity, as there the unity made is real and palpable, not just in context.
There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Did you read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

Milliardo Peacecraft

25-09-03, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Where in the Bible does it say that Allah would not make any covenant with Ishmael?

I think I've already explained to you that since the covenant was with Isaac, and indeed with Israel, and since no mention of a covenant was made with Ishmael, then it is fitting to conclude that no covenant with Ishmael existed. Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count.

Matthew 15:9 Did you read wash,should you read worship,reason worship is nothing to do with wash your hand before meals.

It is evident you are not even familiar with Judaism, or else you won't even make this statement. Again, ritual purification is very much a big deal for the Pharisees. If they eat anything ritually unclean or have touched anything unclean and then ate without washing their hands, then they are ritually unclean and unfit to partake in the Sabbath rites in the Temple. Thus cleaning one's self is very much part of their worship, as it signifies that they are pure and fit to be before the Holy of Holies. That is why circumcision is also big among the Pharisees, as this is another ritual purification for them. You really should brush up on Jewish practices so that you know what you're talking about instead of proof texting.

Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I have explained to you what the quote made by Jesus means; it has nothing to do with how Christians see Christ but rather Jesus is pointing to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Have you just plucked that verse out of nowhere? If you did, then you should read the whole passage to see why Jesus quoted it. I will direct you to Matthew 15:1-20 and read it, so you will have a better grasp on the context of Jesus' quoting Isaiah.

There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Did you read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm Read again the whole article and come back here and tell me if there is really no basis. Funny how you spout off nonsense when you haven't even read the whole thing.

IceTea

25-09-03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count.

First show the real Bible then say above statement.

Milliardo Peacecraft

25-09-03, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by IceTea
First show the real Bible then say above statement.

Icebag, if you can't contribute anything better to this discussion, then don't even post. As it is I am enjoying this discussion, but that's because the replies I get aren't even enough for me, just like that thread I made about the Qur'an, which none here has been able to sufficiently explain why something so holy would only be lost, or burned by the third caliph, and have him come out with a translation that for all we know, might really be different from the original. But that issue is for that thread, not here. In any case, the chapters about Ishamel are in Genesis 16-21, apart from a brief mention of Ishmael's lineage and passing in Genesis 25. Genesis 16 records that Ishmael and his kinsmen will oppose his fellow kin--a prophecy fulfilled in the neighboring tribes going against Israel.

silver_ring

25-09-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Icebag, if you can't contribute anything better to this discussion, then don't even post. As it is I am enjoying this discussion, but that's because the replies I get aren't even enough for me, just like that thread I made about the Qur'an, which none here has been able to sufficiently explain why something so holy would only be lost, or burned by the third caliph, and have him come out with a translation that for all we know, might really be different from the original. But that issue is for that thread, not here. In any case, the chapters about Ishamel are in Genesis 16-21, apart from a brief mention of Ishmael's lineage and passing in Genesis 25. Genesis 16 records that Ishmael and his kinsmen will oppose his fellow kin--a prophecy fulfilled in the neighboring tribes going against Israel. yes first go and find out where is the original one ...!!! still you cant answer those questions (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13355&highlight=questions+wont+answer)

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
yes first go and find out where is the original one ...!!! still you cant answer those questions (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13355&highlight=questions+wont+answer)

I think we've already told you before that the original copies of the Bible are extant and can easily be found. Some of those copies are in the Vatican Library, while others are in various museums around the world. Experts have studied these copies and verified them. However, that can't be said of the Qur'an, whose first copy was lost or burned, thus leaving the Qur'an we have now suspect since there's no original to verify if it has actually followed the first one. Since no copy of the first existed, we can assume then that the Qur'an we have now is a corrupt version of the earlier, inspite of the protestations of Muslim scholars. The only way to judge its veracity is to produce the early copy--but with none in hand, we can't do that now, can we?

silver_ring

26-09-03, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I think we've already told you before that the original copies of the Bible are extant and can easily be found. Some of those copies are in the Vatican Library, while others are in various museums around the world. Experts have studied these copies and verified them. However, that can't be said of the Qur'an, whose first copy was lost or burned, thus leaving the Qur'an we have now suspect since there's no original to verify if it has actually followed the first one. Since no copy of the first existed, we can assume then that the Qur'an we have now is a corrupt version of the earlier, inspite of the proestations of Muslim scholars. The only way to judge its veracity is to produce the early copy--but with none in hand, we can't do that now, can we?

i am really wondering ... which faith is in your heart ..!!!

you admired that bibles writtin by humans .is it not?whatever they are .. finally they only humans

.. and humans simply could be in mistake . and you are following them..and you have read enough about the mistakes in bible ...

sanwin25

26-09-03, 02:14 AM

So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
i am really wondering ... which faith is in your heart ..!!!

My faith is the Catholic faith. You know that very well.

you admired that bibles writtin by humans .is it not?whatever they are .. finally they only humans

As much as the Qur'an is also made by humans, inspite of what your Muslim teachers would like you to believe. Something that's made by God would not be lost or burned down by another human--something which the original Qur'an clearly has not survived. Thus inspite of your scholars' ramblings, the very fact it is lost and what we have now is a transliteration of the original shows us that it is only made by humans, not by Allah. Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. It's time Islam admits the same of the Qur'an--there's no shame in admitting such. It won't change the message, unless you would think such an admission would make that book fall from grace. But if that happens, then the next logical step would be to repudate Islam itself. So admitting it is made by humans shouldn't be a cause for shame, since if you are a true Muslim, you can still proudly say that the Qur'an is made by men who were inspired by God, just as we Christians proudly say it, without shame or guilt.

...and humans simply could be in mistake . and you are following them..and you have read enough about the mistakes in bible ...

Does God make mistakes? No. Even the so-called mistakes you say have meaning, and are symbolic. Take for instance the differences between the narratives of Jesus' lineage and birth in Matthew and Luke. Non-Christians might say that the differences prove that one must be false, and the other true, or both must be false. But theologians see a much deeper meaning to this: Matthew shows us that Jesus is a Jew's Jew, faithful to God's covenant, while Luke shows us that Jesus is first among men; and indeed, His lineage goes all the way back to God Himself. So there are theological meanings to these so-called mistakes.

mkongwe

26-09-03, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Do come back here if you find in the Bible where it says Ishmael had a covenant. And no, circumcision doesn't count

Allah tells Abraham in Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and to your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God after you and to your descendants after you.
Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.
Genesis 16:10…And the Angel of the Lord said unto her (Hagar), I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude…
Genesis 17:20 …And for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princess shall he beger, and I will make him great nation…
Genesis 21:13 … And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed…
Genesis 21:18 … Arise, lift up the lad (Ishmael), and hold him in thine hand, for I will make him a great nation….
Galatians 4:21-24... Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? for it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.
You will see the contradiction in Genesis 22:2...It is mentioned there “thine only son Isaac”. Should it not have been written “thine only son Ishmael”. When Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac not born yet? When Isaac was born Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism the name Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22, but God preserved the word “only” to show us what it should have been.

I will direct you to Matthew 15:1-20 and read it, so you will have a better grasp on the context of Jesus' quoting Isaiah.
Jesus worshiped God as any other mortal: Luke 5:16 “And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed”
Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve”
Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

Read again the whole article and come back here and tell me if there is really no basis. Funny how you spout off nonsense when you haven't even read the whole thing.
That is why I ask you. There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
Please read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-09-03, 12:12 PM

About Ishmael again: you forget that it is prophecied as well that Ishamel and his descendants will be set up against its neighbors, who later on we shall see to be Jewish Israel. The banishment of Ishmael from Abraham and the lifting up of Isaac, and later on of Jacob (Israel) shows us that the covenant was fulfilled with Isaac, not anymore with Ishmael. Though Ishmael is promised a great nation to come (possibly Egypt), it will not surpass the greatness of Israel, as we see later on again with the resto f the Old Testament.

Galatians 4:21-24... Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? for it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.

Again, you are proof texting. Read the rest of the passage for your understanding, form Galatians 4:25-31--(24) One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
25 Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
26
But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband." 16
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
29 But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now.
30 But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn.
31 Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.

Paul here is contrasting between those who are under the Law--Judaism--and those who have accepted Christ. Note that Paul mentions that it is Isaac who is born of the promise (verse 28) and that he affirms Ishmael being driven out from Abraham (and in conclusion, from God as well) in verse 30. The inheritance--the salvation that is in Christ--shall not be shared by the children of slavery (slavery in sin, that is, as contrast to Paul referring to himself as a slave for Christ). Paul concludes then that as Christians we must be born of the free woman, not of the slave. Paul is thus contrasting here in allegorical terms the fates of Ishamel and Isaac as the fates of those who have rejected Christ and accepted Him.

You will see the contradiction in Genesis 22:2...It is mentioned there “thine only son Isaac”.[/qoute]

Nope, it is not a contradiction. By driving out Hagar and Ishmael, as I have mentioned, they have lost the inheritance and covenant due to them, and this passed onto Isaac, in fulfillment of the fact that from the seed of Jacob shall come the Savior, from the House of Israel shall rise the King of all. Thus God has fulfilled this in Isaac and later on in Jacob. So you can see this is a prophetic message of the coming of Christ.

[quote]chauvinism the name Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22, but God preserved the word “only” to show us what it should have been.

Nope. See the explanation I have given.

hiped God as any other mortal: Luke 5:16 “And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed”

Prayer is a means of communication between the hosts in heaven and those on earth. It doesn't necessarily mean worship. Jesus employed that mode so as not to fully reveal His nature to most until He has fulfilled what He came to do: to die and rise up so that through Him, our sins are borne. As you can see elsewhere, He can communicate and indeed show His true nature if He wanted to (the Transfiguration is one such instance).

I ask you again: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

As I have already posted, Jesus has declared: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58) This declaration is, as explained: I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's (God's) own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh (God). So yes, Jesus has declared it.

silver_ring

26-09-03, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

yes i do

silver_ring

26-09-03, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B]My faith is the Catholic faith. You know that very well.

i hope that u r wearing hejab !! and not showing ppl ur beauty

As much as the Qur'an is also made by humans, inspite of what your Muslim teachers would like you to believe. Something that's made by God would not be lost or burned down by another human--something which the original Qur'an clearly has not survived. Thus inspite of your scholars' ramblings, the very fact it is lost and what we have now is a transliteration of the original shows us that it is only made by humans, not by Allah. Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. It's time Islam admits the same of the Qur'an--there's no shame in admitting such. It won't change the message, unless you would think such an admission would make that book fall from grace. But if that happens, then the next logical step would be to repudate Islam itself. So admitting it is made by humans shouldn't be a cause for shame, since if you are a true Muslim, you can still proudly say that the Qur'an is made by men who were inspired by God, just as we Christians proudly say it, without shame or guilt.
thanks for making me laugh

[font=comic sans ms]Does God make mistakes? No. Even the so-called mistakes you say have meaning, and are symbolic. Take for instance the differences between the narratives of Jesus' lineage and birth in Matthew and Luke. Non-Christians might say that the differences prove that one must be false
unacceptable

mkongwe

26-09-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. ...
Does God make mistakes? No.

We will take the most popular Bibles , the King James Version (K.J.V.), the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) , the New International Version (N.I.V.) , the Good News Bible (G.N.B.), and the Living Bible Version (L.B.V.) and contrast verses within these Bibles .
verse Matthew 17:21
----------------------
K.J.V. "Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
==================
verse Mark 9:44
-------------------
K.J.V. "Where their warm dies not, and the fire is not quenched"
R.S.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
=================
verse Mark 16:9-20
----------------------
K.J.V. (not omitted )
R.S.V. (omitted in edition 1952 and recently restored with the footnote "not include in the most reliable manuscripts)
====================
verse Luke 9:56
-------------------
K.J.V. "For the son of man is not come to destroy men's live but to save.
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
==================

verse Luke 17:36
---------------------
K.J.V. "Two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
===================
verse John 5:4
------------------
K.J.V. "For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled water. Whosoever then after the troubling of the water stepped in was made of whatsoever disease he had"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.V. (not included)
===================
verse 1 John 5:7
--------------------
K.J.V. "For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, and the word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one"
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. "For there are three that testify; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood and these three are in agreement."
G.N.B. "There are three witnesses; the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood,
L.B.V. (not included)
=========================
the word "begotten" is not included in verse; [[John 3:16]]
---------------
K.J.V. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son"
R.S.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son"
N.I.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son"
G.N.B. "For God so loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
L.B.V. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
============================
verse Romans 7:17
---------------------
R.s.V. "I do not understand my own actions"
K.J.V. (not included)
===========================
verse Hebrew 12:8
---------------------
K.J.V. "Then you are bastards, and not sons."
R.S.V. "Then you are illegitimate children and not sons."
G.N.B. "It means you are not real sons, but bastards."
L.B.V. "It means that you are not God's son at all"
=====================
verse Job 13:15
-------------------
K.J.V. "Though he slay me yet I trust him"
R.S.V. "he will slay me, I have no hope"
G.N.B. "I've lost all hope so what if God kills me."
L.B.V. "God may kill me for saying this, in fact I expect him to."
=====================
verse Ezekiel 16:25
-----------------------
K.J.V. "And had opened your feet to every one that passed by."
R.S.V. "Offering yourself to any passer by"
N.I.V. "Offering your body with increasing promiscuity to who passed by"
L.B.I. "You offered your beauty to every man who came by"
D.R.V. "And had prostituted thyself to every one that passes by"
=========================
This is excluding the deadly argument between the Catholics and Protestants who have Bibles that differ even more;
The Catholics have 7 additional Chapters/books called "Deutrocanonicals" their names are; (Tobit, Judith, Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, 1st. Maccabees, and 2nd. Maccabees) .
-------------
a total of 73 Chapters/books within the Catholic Bible
============
The Protestants in the year 1611 AD , removed the Deutrocanonicals from the Bible
--------------
66 Chapters/books within the Protestant Bible .
If the Christians had obeyed the Bible from the start , than all the Christians persecuting Christians would not have occurred and will stop occurring .
" What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." De 12:32
" Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."Pr 30:6
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Re 22:19
By the Grace of Allah , the Holy Qur'an , the Third and Final Warning to humans , has been protected by Allah from change for over 1,400 hundred years .

Milliardo Peacecraft

27-09-03, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
We will take the most popular Bibles , the King James Version (K.J.V.), the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) , the New International Version (N.I.V.) , the Good News Bible (G.N.B.), and the Living Bible Version (L.B.V.) and contrast verses within these Bibles .

Most of what you posted are only differences in translations; this does not take away the fact that mistakes are not made. As for some verses not placed, it is usually noted as to what's the most reliable transcript is. Agan, this does not take away the very nature and meaning of the passages presented.

the word "begotten" is not included in verse; [[John 3:16]]
---------------
K.J.V. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son"
R.S.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son"
N.I.V. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son"
G.N.B. "For God so loved the world so much that he gave his only son"
L.B.V. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son"

Usually only and begotten are synonymous, thus it is understood that Christ is the only begotten Son when it is read.

============================
This is excluding the deadly argument between the Catholics and Protestants who have Bibles that differ even more;
The Catholics have 7 additional Chapters/books called "Deutrocanonicals" their names are; (Tobit, Judith, Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, 1st. Maccabees, and 2nd. Maccabees) .
-------------
a total of 73 Chapters/books within the Catholic Bible
============
The Protestants in the year 1611 AD , removed the Deutrocanonicals from the Bible
--------------
66 Chapters/books within the Protestant Bible .

Luther removed them since he thought them to be not inspired; however, early Christians have all 73 books, since the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. has ratified this listing to be the final one. Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches have 73 books. Some Protestant Bible scholars actually think Luther made a mistake in taking out those books, and are looking into the possibility of reinserting them into Protestant Bibles. Do note that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Luther's action on this is anathema, and sees this as his personal choice, not to be associated with the general consensus of Christianity.

If the Christians had obeyed the Bible from the start , than all the Christians persecuting Christians would not have occurred and will stop occurring .

The same that if Muslims follow the Qur'an faithfully, they would stop persecuting fellow Muslims and people of different faith.

sanwin25

27-09-03, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
So where is the original Quran ?

You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

yes i do

Yes I do WHAT ?

Yes you DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL QURAN IS ?

You are correct.

The original was written on leaves and bark and bones.

Unfortunately Uthman BURNT them all, so that no one could question his ONE FINAL VERSION.

Think about it.

You have your passport.

You take a photocopy or photograph.

Then you BURN the original passport so that no one can say the photocpy is fake.

Incredible !

mkongwe

27-09-03, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

Paul concludes then that as Christians we must be born of the free woman, not of the slave.

Is Paul God?
God says in Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.

Genesis 16:3-4…and Sarah gave her Hagar to her husband Abram to be his wife and he went in to Hagar, and she conceived.

As I have already posted, Jesus has declared: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58) This declaration is, as explained: I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's (God's) own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh (God). So yes, Jesus has declared it.
Please don't ADD
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18.
Let me ask you again:did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?
Please don't ignore my question.

The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible, trinity never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him.
There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.
The Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus ,the Original Sin, the Atonement. All these are doctrines made by men. Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:9) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

silver_ring

27-09-03, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
Yes I do WHAT ?

Yes you DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL QURAN IS ?

You are correct.

The original was written on leaves and bark and bones.

Unfortunately Uthman BURNT them all, so that no one could question his ONE FINAL VERSION.

Think about it.

You have your passport.

You take a photocopy or photograph.

Then you BURN the original passport so that no one can say the photocpy is fake.

Incredible !

this is the words of ALlah not passport .... and Uthman " alyhe alslaam" , burnt it infront of muslims after they collect it in one book .. and was good idea to burn it .

sanwin25

28-09-03, 03:34 AM

Sigh.

You are being thicker than usual.

I did not say it was a passport.

I just the passport as an analogy to something valuable to you.

So.

Why was it a good idea ?

A simple direct answer would be appreciated.

Not any of your ususal mumbo jumbo.

So I will ask you once again, slowly this time :

W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is Paul God?
God says in Genesis 15:14…And be hold, the word of the Lord came unto him (Abraham), saying, This (Eliezer of Damascus) shall not be thine heir, but he shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir…So Ishmael was also heir.

Since Ishamel and his mother Hagar were banished from Abraham by Sarah's request, the covenant fell on Isaac and he was made heir, not Ishmael. Again, this is reflected in the fact that Jews follow the line of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, not Abraham-Ishmael. Ishmael effectively lost his right to become heir to Abraham.

Please don't ADD
"For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Re 22:18.

Nope, I am not adding. The verse I quoted is in John. You are free to look at John 8 for your own satisfaction: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm. I have not ignored your question, and have in fact answered it very straightly. I wonder what part of the explanation I gave you can't seem to understand. Or maybe you refuse to do so, in which case I cannot help you then, since you would not try to understand.

The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible, trinity never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him.

This is perhaps the poorest of arguments. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it is not taught, or even has a reference to. I have given you the link to study about the Trinity. It puts all the references and explanations about them there. If, like I said, you refuse to understand, then I cannot do anything about it. That is your problem, not mine.

You see, as sanwin has observed, you are merely like parrots who talk but do not think. I don't even know if you read. Do you read? You quote verses out of context, not bothering to read them in light of the passage where it came from. If you read the whole passage from where you take those verses, you will realize it says differently from what you were taught by your Muslim "scholars"--who are just as clueless of the Bible anyway, since this is not their line of expertise. You ask us Christians to give you proof--we gave you proof, and then tell us that it is not so. We can't do anything anymore for people who refuse to understand, since that is your problem to work out.

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S ?
Sanwin, we've asked this before to them, and they didn't as much as try to reply (and funny that they charge us for not being direct. How amusing). I will reply for them: the original Qur'an was burned because it did not suit the taste of those who wanted to make religion as an excuse to occupy people's lands. So what better way to hide something than to burn it, make a new copy, and say to the world, "Behold! This is the Qur'an as we know it. All praise!" while lying to people's faces and laughing it good for burning the original.

sanwin25

28-09-03, 04:30 AM

I agree.

Although I will let Silver Ring have one more shot at it.

Although I don't expect him to be deal with it anyway.

After all it would acutally involve USING your brain, not just being a parrot.

silver_ring

28-09-03, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Sanwin, we've asked this before to them, and they didn't as much as try to reply (and funny that they charge us for not being direct. How amusing). I will reply for them: the original Qur'an was burned because it did not suit the taste of those who wanted to make religion as an excuse to occupy people's lands. So what better way to hide something than to burn it, make a new copy, and say to the world, "Behold! This is the Qur'an as we know it. All praise!" while lying to people's faces and laughing it good for burning the original.

we have answered it several times

and here 'll be again my same answer

W H Y
W A S
I T
A
G O O D
I D E A
T O
B U R N
T H E
O R I G I N A L
C O P I E S

After Abu Bakr (ra), the Caliph Umar ruled, and after the Caliph Umar, Uthman Ibn Affan was elected as Caliph. During the period of the Caliph Uthman, Islam spread to many areas. The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read. They changed the meanings of the verses, and many variant readings sprung out, because the people were ignorant of Arabic. Old Arabic was written as lines, and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks. But this was not the case in older times. That's why, the Caliph Uthman immediately told a committee of scribes to write the Qur'an in the dialect of the Quraysh, because that was how the Qur'an was revealed. When the scribes had prepared many copies from the one which Abu Bakr (ra) had compiled, each copy was sent to each city under Muslim rule. Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned. Then, from the standard copies, more copies were made and this time there were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Qur'an.

Reasons for the burning
The Christian missionaries have been openly making the allegation that Uthman (ra) ordered all copies of the Qur'an to be burnt because of the varying content. This is not true. We quote Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on this issue:

Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur'an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script. That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur'an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess. How could it then happen that from century to century and from country to country we find the same text of the Qur'an? It is said that 'Uthman, the third leader succeeding the Prophet, ordered people to burn all the texts of the Qur'an which were different from a certain text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman's text was not the authentic text? Westerners may have the tendency to think that Muslim rulers must have always been tyrant dictators who could force the people to do anything. This is certainly not true of the early leaders of Muslims. But even if we assume that people lived in terror of their leaders, it was logistically impossible for 'Uthman to control every home. People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur'an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us. It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur'an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur'an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the "divine" scripture. Thus in one such passage we read:

And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79).

In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it:

[God says:] [/color=red]Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful[/color] (2:159-160).

Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance.

And what about the text that 'Uthman promulgated? How did he arrive at that text? On the basis of what text did the first two leaders, Abu Bakr and 'Umar governed the Muslim lands before him ? What text people had been using in their daily prayers in Medina, the city of the Prophet, which consisted almost entirely of Muslims, most having seen and heard the Prophet? What text was used throughout the land during sermons before the Friday congregational prayers? How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous. There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God.

It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed. The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.

In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same.(Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada) (http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#4)

sanwin25

28-09-03, 06:39 AM

Nope you didn't answer the question.

You posted earlier that Uthman burned the copies.

I asked why.

You couldn't answer. You just copied from some website without reading.

Too bad, you don't know what you believe in.

WHY DID UTHMAN BURN THE COPIES.

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-09-03, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read.

If that's so, why not just make a non-Arabic version? I fail to see why the original needs to be burned when it's a simple matter of translation.

Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned.

Agan, this doesn ot explain why the original has to be burned with the rest. It only shows, however, that Uthman was shrewd, and used the Qur'an as an excuse to consolidate his power, since he figured the original would undermine whatever he really believed in.

Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur'an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script.['quote]

So this actually means the original was erroneous? But how can that be, when it is the first, and so should contain the seeds of Islam? This is stange logic being taught here.

[quote]That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur'an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess.

How could it be "closer" when the original was lost or burned? Of course, one can say such and such is true or close since there's no comparison with the original. Very convenient excuse made. As I've said, we have strange logic being taught here.

But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman's text was not the authentic text?

Yes, isn't it strange? At least this professor is willing to admit that Uthman's text is not the authentic one. Now we must wonder if what Islam abides to is the authentic book that Mohammed made.

People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur'an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us.

The fact that none did should lead us to wonder what measures were enforced to ensure eradicating all traces of the original, including "corrupt" copies thereof.

In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it...

Clever of Uthman to have included this. It is evident he did all he could to scare the wits out of those who might challenge him.

The most likely way things happened is like this:

Uthman secretly called in his "scholars" and ordered them to make copies of the original, seeing to it that verses that will frighten or intimidate the people are added in for effect. The originals were then burned, leaving us with this new text. Then these copies were sent out, and anyone who has a different text will be shown Uthman's text, and intimidated or coerced into giving up their copies. It really isn't hard for such a scenario, given the conditions of those times and the fact that Islam was spread by the sword. So by intimidation and force, the original Qur'an was lost among us, and we have now Uthman's version which is being bandied out as the "true" version--nevermind if few Muslims ever wondered what really happened to the original, and why it was lost to us. Uthman did a pretty good job in this case then.

mkongwe

28-09-03, 02:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Christians say that the Bible is written by men who were guided by God, and as well the Jews also say this is true of the Old Testament manuscripts. ...
Does God make mistakes? No.
Most of what you posted are only differences in translations;
this does not take away the fact that mistakes are not made.
As for some verses not placed,
it is usually noted as to what's the most reliable transcript is.
this does not take away the very nature and meaning of the passages presented.
Luther removed them since he thought them to be not inspired; however, early Christians have all 73 books,
since the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. has ratified this listing to be the final one.
Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches have 73 books.
Some Protestant Bible scholars actually think Luther made a mistake in taking out those books,
and are looking into the possibility of reinserting them into Protestant Bibles.
Do note that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Luther's action on this is anathema, and sees this as his personal choice, not to be associated with the general consensus of Christianity.
IS BIBLE GOD'S WORD?

mkongwe

28-09-03, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
[B]So where is the original Quran ?
You know the one which Mohammed approved ?

Which is original Bibles?

The King James Version (K.J.V.)

The Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.)

The New International Version (N.I.V.)

The Good News Bible (G.N.B.)

The Living Bible Version (L.B.V.)

The American Standard Version (A.S.V)

The Queen Version, Promise and ..................? ? ? ? ?

Is it 73 chapter/books or 66 chapter/books?

WHY 'ACCORDING TO"
what about the so-called New Testament? why does every Gospel begin with the introduction-ACCORDING TO......
Why "according to?"
Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!' Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

mkongwe

28-09-03, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft Since Ishamel and his mother Hagar were banished from Abraham by Sarah's request,

Is sarah God?

Nope, I am not adding. The verse I quoted is in John. You are free to look at John 8 for your own satisfaction: I have not ignored your question, and have in fact answered it very straightly. I wonder what part of the explanation I gave you can't seem to understand. Or maybe you refuse to do so, in which case I cannot help you then, since you would not try to understand]
Please try to undestanding, my quesion is: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?

This is perhaps the poorest of arguments. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it is not taught, or even has a reference to.
Read Jeremiah 17:5 "Cursed the man who trusts in man"
Let me ask U simple questinE: what is TRINITY?

Milliardo Peacecraft

29-09-03, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is sarah God?

No, but God certainly agreed to let Sarah persuade Abraham: But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name." (Genesis 21:12). As I have explained, though it goes on that Ishamel will be made a great nation, Israel takes prominence and acquired the rights of inheritance that was denied of Ishmael because of his banishment.

Please try to undestanding, my quesion is: did Jusus ever claim to be God or to say"Here am I,your GOD, and WORSHIP me?

Read it carefully: yes He did. I already quoted the verse in John when He went out and proclaimed He is the I AM--Yahweh personified. It entails then worship. If you cannot understand that, then go and get yourself a dictionary or phrasebook, since all you do is parrot.

Which is original Bibles?

The original manuscripts that make up the Bible were made by either the Apostles themselves, or their followers in the early Apostolic Age, which was about from 35 A.D.-120 A.D. by some accounts. Most of the Pauline letters were made by Paul. Of course, these are all in addition to the Old Testament manuscripts which were found in a cave by the Dead Sea, which confirmed the use of the Septaguint by Jews, or at least a sect of it. These manuscripts were copied and handed down by early Christians, collected and sorted out, until in 405 A.D. St. Jerome made the Latin Vulgate, which became the standard Bible of the Church for over 1000 years before Luther. The Bible yu mentioned are based from these early manuscripts, and all are deemed at one point or another to be true, inasmuch as they have kept as faithfully as possible to the original manuscripts.

Why according to--this is simply to differentiate the Gospel books from one another. Are there differences in style and some details? Yes, there are. This is because each Gospel has a different thrust and audience. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was aimed primarily at Jewish-Christians. Matthew and Luke were aimed more towards the Gentiles who became Christians. John is the same. Their differences also show theological viewpoints which compliment one another: John shows Jesus as the Son of God, the beginning and the end, as we all see in Revelation. So each Gospel shows a different side of Jesus, each one complimenting the other. Such differences does not take away from each one's veracity, and taken together shows us a complete picture of Jesus.

sanwin25

29-09-03, 06:01 AM

This is for Silver Ring.

Which is the most important/valuable possession you have ?

Before you get into your parrot act, let me add, apart from the Quran ?

silver_ring

29-09-03, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
This is for Silver Ring.

Which is the most important/valuable possession you have ?

Before you get into your parrot act, let me add, apart from the Quran ?

Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against God: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire. 3/10

i Will let you to concludes the answer from the above verse.

shamsery

29-09-03, 08:15 PM

Mr. Sanwin,

Quote “WHY DID UTHMAN BURN THE COPIES.” Unquote.

These are out dated question. Our scholars replied thousand of time. Please don’t depend on web pages rather let us study.

Mr. Silver_Ring,
If you can not answer, please do not initiate such topics. That is damaging and if some one loose his respect on your religion, you can not blame them. Take your own time and reply them to the point. Defend with logic, defend your statement scientifically. There is not a single verse in the Holly Qur’an, that could be proved wrong. Please meet their inquisitiveness with valid logical arguments.

mkongwe

29-09-03, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
(Genesis 21:12). As I have explained, though it goes on that Ishamel will be made a great nation, Israel takes prominence and acquired the rights of inheritance that was denied of Ishmael because of his banishment.

If you take Genesis 21:12 as your final conlusion then accept II Samuel 11:4-5: And David sent messengers, and took her (the wife of Uriah); and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness; and she returned unto her house. And the Woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
My question is: How could David then be accepted in the genealogy of Jesus when it started with a person who committed adultery? Allah forbid it! Is this not contradiction with what is mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:2; A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Although Jews and Muslims are archenemies, no Muslim would dare to write a book and stamp any Israelite prophet like Judah, David, Jesus, etc. (Allah’s blessings and peace be upon all of them forever and ever) with rape, adultery, incest or prostitution.
All prophets were sent by Allah for the guidance of mankind. Do you think that Allah had sent the wrong people for guidance?
We believe in all Divine Scriptures, but in their original form. Allah sent to each nation a Prophet as a warner, and some of them with a Scripture as a guidance for the particular nation only. The Suhuf to Abraham, the Torah to Moses, the Zabur (Psalms) to David, and the Injeel to Jesus. None of these Scriptures remain in their original form now. As part of Allah’s original plan, He finally sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the Seal of all Prophets with the Holy Qur’an as a guidance for all mankind, anywhere and anytime.

Read it carefully: yes He did. I already quoted the verse in John when He went out and proclaimed He is the I AM--Yahweh personified. It entails then worship. If you cannot understand that, then go and get yourself a dictionary or phrasebook, since all you do is parrot.

No need to get dictionary or phrasebook, lets read together John 8-52 to 59.
John 8:52 The Jews said to him, ”Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death’53 Are you greater than our father Abraham; who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be? 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not know him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him; I should be a liar like you; but I do not know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoice that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.”57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Jesus says: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.
Luke 18:18-19 “And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall Ido to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why collect thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God
God Says in Isaiah 46:45 “To whom will ye like me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

I’m sure now you understanding, my question is: did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say “Here am I, your God, and WORSHIP ME?

Most of the Pauline letters were made by Paul.

Are Pauline letters God words?

Milliardo Peacecraft

29-09-03, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by shamsery
Mr. Sanwin,

Quote “WHY DID UTHMAN BURN THE COPIES.” Unquote.

These are out dated question. Our scholars replied thousand of time. Please don’t depend on web pages rather let us study.

I think it is fair to say that if the answer given above by silver ring is the same answer given by any of oyur scholars, then it does not even address the issue but ratheer sidesteps it, by saying that such and such were poor copies, so they were burned. But that does not still address the issue: why was the original burned along with the supposedly poor copies? One would give good logic that the original should have been preserved, and revered, as it rightly deserves. But no, Uthman burned it, and to this day not only non-Muslims, but even Muslims as well, are being given the runaround with such answers that do anything but directly address the issue. If this is the answer officially given, then it is found wanting, and the honest Muslim should rightfully question this, as he deserves to know it if one would still strive to faithfully follow Islam. Failure to address the issue is a failure by Muslim teachers and scholars to defend Islam, and this causes many to doubt and suspect the faith.

Milliardo Peacecraft

29-09-03, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
How could David then be accepted in the genealogy of Jesus when it started with a person who committed adultery?

Jesus' genealogy did not start from David; indeed, both Luke and Matthew go back to Abraham on this one. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were none the better than David was; all of them had their faults. It only shows us that, though frail men could be, yet from such an imperfect lineage should still come the Emmanuel. As we profess, Jesus bore the sins of all mankind so that through Him man will be purified, and that is why Jesus' line reflects these imperfections. You will note further after David that there are men and even women who are even less perfect than David ever was.

Jesus says: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.

True. There are two things one should note here: one, Jesus says this in humility; He lets GOd testify on His behalf, not Himself. Two, He said this before His death and resurrection. Again, He lets His actions speak for itself. He did not come to say out and out that He is the Lord and Messiah; He lets God and other people testify on His behalf. That is why He asks in Matthew: Who do people say that I am? To which Peter answered that He is indeed the One sent. So we can see here Jesus stating His humility. A clue should be made on why Jesus proclaimed He is the I AM: the Jews kept asking Him who did He claim He was. At first He hinted at them that it is God who testifies in His behalf (verse 54). The Jews then ask how He knows Abraham (which should be another clue, since no one would have personally know Abraham at that time), to which Jesus finally replies that He is the I AM. Note that at this point the Jews were ready to stone Him--the punishment meted for blasphemy, since Jesus has uttered and put Himself equal to God at this point.

Are Pauline letters God words?
Yes.

shamsery

29-09-03, 10:32 PM

Posted by Mr.Sanwin,
Quote “WHY DID UTHMAN BURN THE COPIES.” Unquote.

Posted by Milliardo Peacecraft,

Quote “why was the original burned along with the supposedly poor copies?” Unquote.
Do you find any contradiction in above statements?
Very simple example.

Who says and where from you have discovered that the original Holly Qur’an were burnt?

Let us clarify this point first.

sanwin25

30-09-03, 04:35 AM

Who says and where from you have discovered that the original Holly Qur’an were burnt?

For a start, you could try reading what SR posted ?

Never thought of that, oh wonderful Shams ?

Silver Ring wrote :
i Will let you to concludes the answer from the above verse

I could not conclude ANYTHING apart from the fact that you are in a cold funk and scared sh;tless of answering what was a simple, direct question.

Anyone, can you answer the question that Silver Ring is so scared to answer ?

sanwin25

30-09-03, 04:38 AM

There is not a single verse in the Holly Qur’an, that could be proved wrong.

You could take a shot at the verse which describes the source of a mans reproductive powers as somewhere near his ribs ?

Scottish Gal

30-09-03, 04:36 PM

everybody is so uptight and obsessed withthe quran and uthman business.

i know it concerns people but i remember discussing this in the summer for a very long time.......................

mkongwe

30-09-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Jesus' genealogy did not start from David;

So we can see clearly from where the lineage and prestige shall come from, from where the Messiah came. It is from the throne of David, the House of Israel, not another nation nor people.

since Jesus has uttered and put Himself equal to God at this point.
God Says in Isaiah 46:45 “To whom will ye like me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?
Please answer my question is: did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say “Here am I, your God, and WORSHIP ME?

Yes.

ST. PAUL

Paul was not one of Jesus’s disciples. He strongly opposed Jesus during his time. But four years later Paul claimed that he saw Jesus in his dream and asked him to go and preach the Gospel to non-Jews. It is there then that he claimed to be the Apostle to the Gentles (Non-Jews).
Paul in Romans 11:13
“For I speak to you Gentles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentles, I magnify mine office”.
In the first letter of Paul to Corinthians 2:1-2
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with Excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified”.
In the letter of Paul to Philippians 2:5-7
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men…”
Paul says in Timothy 3:14-16
“These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry along, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flest, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentles, believe on in the world, received up into glory.”
In Titus 2:13-14
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
If Paul is calling Jesus “great God” then how will he call his Father in Heaven? Let us see what Jesus says:
John 14:28
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”
Which is to say he was born by the will of God, like any other mortal, and he will die to return to God, like all human beings.
Let us ask Paul from where he got these ideas. He says in 2 Corinthians 11:16-17
“I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”
1 Corinthians 9:15
“But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”
In Galatians 3:15
“Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disanulleth, or addeth thereto.”
In other word Paul confesses that he does not speak on the authority of Jesus, and that he is motivated by boastfulness and self-glorification.
Now let us see what Jesus says and compare with Paul’s teachings.
Matthew 15:8-9
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Matthew 10:5-7
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, go not into the way of the Gentles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter yet not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Matthew 15:21-28
“Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coast of Tyre and Sid on. And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying Lord, help me. But he answered and said, it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat crumbs which fall from their master’s table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith. Be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from the very hour”.
Jesus preached strict monotheism as Moses and other Prophets had done hence to preserve the one true religion and in the belief in one God, he forbade preaching to others beyond the tribe of Israel. It would be like throwing pearls before swine. He was careful to keep to the law and the commandments of God. Paul violated all these. By taking the religion of the One God to the pagans who believed in many gods, and who knew nothing about the law of God, Paul exposed the true religion to the infiltration of Pagans beliefs, and so created a completely separate religion from that of Moses and even Jesus. Without Paulinism, Mosaic Islam would have developed smoothly without a hitch to Christian Islam, and thence to the universal faith of Islam as taught by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
It is now clear that St. Paul is the man who made it possible to have more than one religion as it is today. There is nowhere in the whole Bible where Jesus told anyone that he was God and that he should be worshipped. On the contrary, he repeated so many times that he was a prophet sent by God who is supreme. Also, while he walked on this earth he confined his preaching to the Jews only as he was sent only to “the sheep of the house of Israel”.

Doctrines made by men create confusion.

Milliardo Peacecraft

01-10-03, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
God Says in Isaiah 46:45 “To whom will ye like me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?
Please answer my question is: did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say “Here am I, your God, and WORSHIP ME?

You keep repeating this. Learn to read. Go get yourself a dictionary or a phrase book if you can't read. I've explained it to you time and again, but since you refuse to understand, then there's nothing I can do. In any case, Isaiah 46:5 (there's no verse 45) is in reference to the false gods of Babylon in particular. Does this refer to Jesus? No, it doesn't. Reference that later to the fact that Isaiah speaks of the Messiah, so this verse can't be applied to Jesus.

Paul was not one of Jesus’s disciples.

Not one of the 12, but nonetheless Paul is still counted as among Jesus' early Disciples.

In other word Paul confesses that he does not speak on the authority of Jesus, and that he is motivated by boastfulness and self-glorification.

Time and again Paul writes that he boasts but because of Christ, not for his own self-glorification. You again take random verses out of context. Go read all of Paul's letters before making such nonsensical posts.

Matthew 10:5-7
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, go not into the way of the Gentles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter yet not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Jesus made this first instruction as His time was not yet at hand; until He has completed His mission, He instructed them to remain with Him at Galilee. Later on He instructs them, before His Ascension, to go and baptize all nations (cf. Matthew 28:19) and teaching them (verse 20). So Paul obeyed Jesus perfectly.

he forbade preaching to others beyond the tribe of Israel.

Nope. Read again above. The command of Jesus is reflected elsewhere in Mark (Mark 16:15) and Luke (Luke 24:46-47). Again, your so-called "scholars" are trying to rip you off by throwing random verses out of context. Please do realize that you are posting to Christians who know their Bible.

Without Paulinism, Mosaic Islam would have developed smoothly without a hitch to Christian Islam, and thence to the universal faith of Islam as taught by the Prophet Muhammad.

Mosaic Islam? The very first one who will object to such a calling would be the Jews themselves, who are the rightful ones to be called as the people under the Mosaic Law, not (and I will sternly emhpasize this) Islam.

It is now clear that St. Paul is the man who made it possible to have more than one religion as it is today.

There has been more than one religion before Islam, and there will be more than one religion after it. It does not take overnight to make people to come to one faith, unless you put them to the sword.

There is nowhere in the whole Bible where Jesus told anyone that he was God and that he should be worshipped.

There is. Countless times He revealed Himself more than just a Messiah. Go read again the link I have provided. It is evident you do not even read.

sanwin25

01-10-03, 03:49 AM

Yes SG, but people still keep posting the same old nonsensical arguments.

Now Old Shams wants us to go through this all over again, and it will be my pleasure to do so.

mkongwe

01-10-03, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
You keep repeating this. Learn to read. Go get yourself a dictionary or a phrase book if you can't read. I've explained it to you time and again, but since you refuse to understand, then there's nothing I can do.

All doctrines of modern Christianity are made by men: the Trinity, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin and Atonement. From Jesus’ own sayings, recorded in the New Testament, it is clear that he never claimed divinity or identity to God:

Jesus says in Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.

John 8:28 I do nothing of myself. Repeat again, I do nothing of myself.

John 14:28 My Father is greater than I. Repeat again, My Father is GREATER than I.

Mark 12:29 The Lord our God is one Lord. Repeat again. The Lord our God is one Lord.

Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Repeat again My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus was called prophet, teacher from God, His servant, Messiah, and later was escalated to Son of God, and the God Himself.

It is amazing that you can’t understand your own language.
It seems that you don’t know the Bible, and I’m sure that you don’t know the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary? They baptized you blindly.

As long as you didn’t answer my question, I will repeat again:
Did Jesus ever claim to be God or to say, Here am I, your God, and worship me?

Doctrines made by men create confusion.

Milliardo Peacecraft

01-10-03, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
All doctrines of modern Christianity are made by men: the Trinity, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin and Atonement.

The doctrines and dogmas in Christianity are actually already known even before Jesus, though not perfectly. As it is, it is through a veil up until Jesus fully revealed Himself.

Jesus says in Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.

Does not show that He disclaims divinity here. Again, another case of proof texting. It only shows that one must be ready to obey Him to follow Him.

John 8:28 I do nothing of myself. Repeat again, I do nothing of myself.

It actually reads, I do nothing on My own. It means that He obeys the will of His Father, and that He eas here to fulfill the mission long ago already ordained.

John 14:28 My Father is greater than I. Repeat again, My Father is GREATER than I.

As explained in the article I have put (which you obviously do not even read): Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

Mark 12:29 The Lord our God is one Lord. Repeat again. The Lord our God is one Lord.

[font=comic sans ms]And the Trinity is indeed one God in three Divine Persons. Your call.

Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Repeat again My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

See the highlighted parts above. It shows us that Jesus is dependent upon the Father, from which all things come from. This is how the Trinity works: the Holy Spirit works from the Father and Son, and the Son works from the Father. The 3 are inseperable; Muslims and others try to separate them, and think there are 3 gods. There is only one God, but have 3 Divine Persons. Think of this: although an imperfect analogy, a schizophrenic has multiple personalities. He might think of himself as Napoleon, or Ceasar, or Nero. Is he 3 different people? No, he is one person acting like 3 different people. The difference between a shizo and the Trinity is that a schizo has no control over himself, and most often does not know the other sides he shows. The Trinity, in contrast, has control and knows the other Persons. Is it impossible? As we can see with the analogy, it isn't. I find this strange: Muslims will agree that God can be here and there at the same time; can be in the past, present and future all at the same time. He can both be finite and infinite. These are all, as we might say, rather impossible, and yet for God it is possible. Have you not read that for God nothing is impossible? So the Trinity is not an impossibility. Muslims and others object to it because it can't be grasped by the human mind. The saints could not fully grasp this as well, yet they did not object to it, but rejoiced in it, because they knew that God is beyond all our understanding, and therefore instead of asking why such and such is so, rejoiced in it. So it is that we Christians, though we do not fully comprehend the Trinity, still rejoice in it, because God can't be fathomed by the human mind--if He can, then you must be God as well.

It is amazing that you can’t understand your own language.
It seems that you don’t know the Bible, and I’m sure that you don’t know the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary? They baptized you blindly.

Nope, I have answered you fully and perfectly. I have given you the passages pertaining to Jesus' divinity. You, on the other hand, simply quote oout og hand, and pretend to say you understand the Bible--when in fact, as I have demonstrated time and again, have refuted your silly attempts to disprove Christianity by quoting verses out of context. So no, I am not amazed at all by your silly attempts, since from the start I know you do not even understand the Bible or the Gospel for that matter.

sanwin25

02-10-03, 03:00 AM

MP, I wouldn't really waste my time.

Although for a moment I believed that mkongwe was made of better stuff, at the end of the day it was clear that he graduated at the head of the class from the same madrassa that Ice Tea and Silver Ring did.

Brainwashed by their mullahs.

silver_ring

02-10-03, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
[

Brainwashed by their mullahs. [/B]

so funny

mkongwe

02-10-03, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
The doctrines and dogmas in Christianity are actually already known even before Jesus, though not perfectly. As it is, it is through a veil up until Jesus fully revealed Himself.

Does not show that He disclaims divinity here. Again, another case of proof texting. It only shows that one must be ready to obey Him to follow Him.

It actually reads, I do nothing on My own. It means that He obeys the will of His Father, and that He eas here to fulfill the mission long ago already ordained.

As explained in the article I have put (which you obviously do not even read): Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

And the Trinity is indeed one God in three Divine Persons. Your call.

See the highlighted parts above. It shows us that Jesus is dependent upon the Father, from which all things come from. This is how the Trinity works: the Holy Spirit works from the Father and Son, and the Son works from the Father. The 3 are inseperable; Muslims and others try to separate them, and think there are 3 gods. There is only one God, but have 3 Divine Persons. Think of this: although an imperfect analogy, a schizophrenic has multiple personalities. He might think of himself as Napoleon, or Ceasar, or Nero. Is he 3 different people? No, he is one person acting like 3 different people. The difference between a shizo and the Trinity is that a schizo has no control over himself, and most often does not know the other sides he shows. The Trinity, in contrast, has control and knows the other Persons. Is it impossible? As we can see with the analogy, it isn't. I find this strange: Muslims will agree that God can be here and there at the same time; can be in the past, present and future all at the same time. He can both be finite and infinite. These are all, as we might say, rather impossible, and yet for God it is possible. Have you not read that for God nothing is impossible? So the Trinity is not an impossibility. Muslims and others object to it because it can't be grasped by the human mind. The saints could not fully grasp this as well, yet they did not object to it, but rejoiced in it, because they knew that God is beyond all our understanding, and therefore instead of asking why such and such is so, rejoiced in it. So it is that we Christians, though we do not fully comprehend the Trinity, still rejoice in it, because God can't be fathomed by the human mind--if He can, then you must be God as well.

Nope, I have answered you fully and perfectly. I have given you the passages pertaining to Jesus' divinity. You, on the other hand, simply quote oout og hand, and pretend to say you understand the Bible--when in fact, as I have demonstrated time and again, have refuted your silly attempts to disprove Christianity by quoting verses out of context. So no, I am not amazed at all by your silly attempts, since from the start I know you do not even understand the Bible or the Gospel for that matter.

John 9:17 So they again said to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet,”
Blind man said Jesus is a Prophet.
Do you have eyes?

mkongwe

02-10-03, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
MP, I wouldn't really waste my time.

Although for a moment I believed that mkongwe was made of better stuff, at the end of the day it was clear that he graduated at the head of the class from the same madrassa that Ice Tea and Silver Ring did.
Brainwashed by their mullahs.

Adam’s children
Genesis 4:1 ...She conceived and bore Cain.
Genesis 4:2 ...She bore his brother Abel.
Genesis 4:25 ...She bore a son and called his name Seth.
If you go back Genesis 4:17 ...Cain knew his wife.
My question is who were the parents of Cain’s wife?

Milliardo Peacecraft

03-10-03, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
John 9:17 So they again said to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet,”
Blind man said Jesus is a Prophet.
Do you have eyes?

Yo also know that at that point in Jesus' ministry, He has not revealed Himself plainly to those around Him. Up until the Crucifixion in fact, He had not revealed His nature. His reply to Pilate should be clue that Jesus is more than a prophet: "My kingdom does not belong to this world" (John 18:36) Later in Revelation, John writes, "He had a name written on His cloak and on His thigh, 'King of kings and Lord of lords." (Revelation 19:16), a title referred to Jesus.

mkongwe

03-10-03, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Yo also know that at that point in Jesus' ministry, He has not revealed Himself plainly to those around Him. Up until the Crucifixion in fact, He had not revealed His nature. His reply to Pilate should be clue that Jesus is more than a prophet: "My kingdom does not belong to this world" (John 18:36) Later in Revelation, John writes, "He had a name written on His cloak and on His thigh, 'King of kings and Lord of lords." (Revelation 19:16), a title referred to Jesus.

The Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Original Sin and the Atonement. All these are doctrines made by men. Jesus had prophesied (Matthew 15:5) that people will worship him uselessly and believing in doctrines made by men: …But in vain do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men….

Jesus who was the expected Messiah, a Prophet, was escalated from teacher to Son of God, Lord, and finally God himself. Read John 3:2: …The same came to Jesus by night and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God…; John 6:14: …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... Jesus is also called prophet in John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19.

What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary?

Milliardo Peacecraft

03-10-03, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Jesus who was the expected Messiah, a Prophet...

Prophet and Messiah are two different terms. Even among the Jews, the Messiah was not merely a prophet. To them it means savior, which is more than the role of a prophet.

Read John 3:2: …The same came to Jesus by night and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God…; John 6:14: …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...

In both instances this is because men do not recognize Jesus as He really is. Recall that Jesus asked His Disciples thus in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

It should be noted that people then saw Jesus to be a prophet, or one of the prophets, to which Jesus, by asking His Disciples, do not agree with, and through them affirms He is more than just a prophet.

mkongwe

04-10-03, 03:16 PM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft .asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

My question is: What is the name of the Father according to prophet Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him).

sanwin25

04-10-03, 06:29 PM

The approach is interesting.

MP has provided copious evidence to prove his point.

The muslims just say "Oh it must be, since the Quran says so".

mkongwe

05-10-03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25 ]The approach is interesting.

MP has provided copious evidence to prove his point.

The muslims just say "Oh it must be, since the Quran says so". ]

Adam’s children
Genesis 4:1 ...She conceived and bore Cain.
Genesis 4:2 ...She bore his brother Abel.
Genesis 4:25 ...She bore a son and called his name Seth.
If you go back Genesis 4:17 ...Cain knew his wife.
My question is who were the parents of Cain’s wife?

IceTea

05-10-03, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
The approach is interesting.

MP has provided copious evidence to prove his point.

Evidences based on a corrupted book you mean.

sanwin25

05-10-03, 05:52 PM

Only in your opinion.

At least he doesn't act like a parrot and repeat the only line he learnt from his Mullah.

The Quran said so. The Quran said so.

I also believe that if IT is allowed to constantly refer to my Holy Book as corrupted, I should can also refer to the Quran as a corrupted book.

So your reliance on a corrupted book puts you in the same spot.

Milliardo Peacecraft

06-10-03, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
Evidences based on a corrupted book you mean.

Since the Qur'an was wholly based on the Bible, which is more corrupt? Most, if not all, of the Old Testament texts in the Bible coincide very well with what Judaism has. That can't even be said of what is in the Qur'an--it does not in fact even remotely resemble anything found in Judaism.

silver_ring

06-10-03, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B][font=comic sans ms]Since the Qur'an was wholly based on the Bible, which is more corrupt?

the bible which we talking about has gone .. corrupted by humans

IceTea

06-10-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Since the Qur'an was wholly based on the Bible, which is more corrupt?

The Quran is not based on any book.

Milliardo Peacecraft

06-10-03, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by silver_ring
the bible which we talking about has gone .. corrupted by humans

And the Qur'an as well, since the original was lost or burned, and what we have now is the Qur'an according to Uthman, not the one which Mohammed penned. Tit for tat--but that's getting petty, really.

So you say, Teabag. But the evidence speaks for itself: which came first? Since we can see the Qur'an came later, and dubiously as well, has hijacked wholesale all of the stories from the Bible, then the logical conclusion would be...

That, despite what your Muslim teachers will tell you.

silver_ring

06-10-03, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B][font=comic sans ms]And the Qur'an as well, since the original was lost or burned, and what we have now is the Qur'an according to Uthman, not the one which Mohammed penned. Tit for tat--but that's getting petty, really

when our prophet mohammed (r) dead , was so many men and women who knows the quran by heart ....

so it can't be changed ..

IceTea

06-10-03, 09:35 PM

It's not a matter of which came first, what matters which book holding the truth. The Quran proves that the Bible abused by humans because the kept on taking and adding things until it get corrupted. On the other hand the Quran remains one version.

jack

06-10-03, 09:38 PM

On the other hand the Quran remains one version.The one burnt version of which you have no idea of what was in the original.

Are we going to argue about this in heaven also. I hope we can find other things more enjoyable to do.

sanwin25

07-10-03, 01:33 AM

when our prophet mohammed (r) dead , was so many men and women who knows the quran by heart ....

You mean like they memorized all the weak and strong hadith ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

07-10-03, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by IceTea
On the other hand the Quran remains one version.

That's because Uthman wanted it so--by keeping the populace on a leesh and putting his own edicts into the Qur'an and proclaiming it "authentic". As for people actually memorizing the whole thing--why the need to still have it written down if it can be memorized without any alteration? Or even better, isn't it much more plausible to have it corrupted since it's not written, and indeed one "scholar" put it so that Uthman ordered the rewriting of the Qur'an so as to be more uniform? Well, so much for it being not corrupt then...

silver_ring

07-10-03, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
You mean like they memorized all the weak and strong hadith ?
hadeeth is different ....

quran is from ALlah and HE promised us that it 'll not change ...and when you go through it ,, the evidences comes from the quran itself thats its from ALlah .

IceTea

07-10-03, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
That's because Uthman wanted it so--by keeping the populace on a leesh and putting his own edicts into the Qur'an and proclaiming it "authentic". As for people actually memorizing the whole thing--why the need to still have it written down if it can be memorized without any alteration? Or even better, isn't it much more plausible to have it corrupted since it's not written, and indeed one "scholar" put it so that Uthman ordered the rewriting of the Qur'an so as to be more uniform? Well, so much for it being not corrupt then...

You claims and analysis is all wrong. The Quran is protected by Allah, so no human can change it.

sanwin25

07-10-03, 03:48 PM

You claims and analysis is all wrong.

Allah could not protect the original Quran. That is why he allowed Uthman to burn the original copies.

silver_ring

07-10-03, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
You claims and analysis is all wrong.

Allah could not protect the original Quran. That is why he allowed Uthman to burn the original copies.

but the book still same as is it .....

sanwin25

07-10-03, 04:53 PM

but the book still same as is it .....

You can never confirm that.

Since the original copies have been burned to ashes.

The only way you can be certain that a document is unchanged is, if you have the original copy or you can compare the copy with the original.

In you case your originals have been burned to ashes. What you have is the Uthman approved version.

NaBHaN

07-10-03, 05:10 PM

yawn.. i had to go through 5 pages of the same thing.. over and over again.

make your peace people. no one is going to get convinced.

and ya;ll should just stop being SO SARCASTIC with each other.

Sheesh!!!! :bang:

silver_ring

07-10-03, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
You can never confirm that.

Since the original copies have been burned to ashes.

The only way you can be certain that a document is unchanged is, if you have the original copy or you can compare the copy with the original.

In you case your originals have been burned to ashes. What you have is the Uthman approved version.
quran has confirmed it ....

if Uthaman (r) burned the original one so do you thing he adds version or he deleted any other ??? if he did soo .. then i dont think that can be any MIRACLES in the quran !!right?
i want to explain for you some thing proofs that original one its the same one which we have now days ..

how??

Sura Al-Nassr(Triumph)is the last sura revealed to Prophet Muhammed.
The number of this sura in the Quran is 110 and it has three verses. and this sura consists of 19 Arabic words and the first verse consists of 19 Arabic letters. i am talking according to arabic words...
http://www3.alislam.org/verses/110-001.gif
http://www3.alislam.org/verses/110-002.gif
http://www3.alislam.org/verses/110-003.gif
http://www3.alislam.org/verses/110-004.gif

[110:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[110:2] When the help of Allah comes, and the victory,
[110:3] And thou seest men entering the religion of Allah in troops,
[110:4] Glorify thy Lord, with His praise, and seek forgiveness of Him. Surely He is Oft Returning with compassion.

islams scholers Studying this Sura which showed that the gematrical (Numerical) value of its verses are as follows :

Verse 1 has 1638 Gematrical value.
Verse 2 has 1771
and verse 3 has 2715

the total gematrical values of the three verses come to 6124 knowing this was the last sura revealed to the Prophet,

if you add this number 6124 to the number of the sura in the Quran, which110 we get: 110+6124= 6234 which is the total number of the (numbered) verses in the Quran

do u think Uthamn when he burned the quran knows that ??and he made every thing ready ???

well...lets continue

A quick observation is that Sura 110 has 3 numbered verses

and one unnumbered verse, this make the total 110+3+1 =114 which is the total number of the Suras in the Quran

and again here do u think Uthamn was so clever in the a counting ...??????

of cours this is the last revelation to the Prophet Muhammed ..ALLah put his code to confirm the total number of both the verses and the suras in the Quran

i hope that u now convinced :rolleyes:

silver_ring

07-10-03, 08:27 PM

and now i dont think so that Uthman can add or delete any verses . you do ??

IceTea

09-10-03, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
You can never confirm that.

Since the original copies have been burned to ashes.

It'seasy to confirm that, becuase up to date we have same copy of the Quran, unlike the Bible there are alot of copies even difficult to count them.

jack

09-10-03, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
It'seasy to confirm that, becuase up to date we have same copy of the Quran, unlike the Bible there are alot of copies even difficult to count them. So you say that the original was not burnt and copies made from memory were not sent out?

Milliardo Peacecraft

10-10-03, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by IceTea
It'seasy to confirm that, becuase up to date we have same copy of the Quran

How can you even begin to compare something with what's not there anymore? Of course Uthman said it's the same copy; but since the original was burned, you just have to take his word for it, right? Would you even trust a guy who burns what you hold sacred, make a copy of his own and blatantly announce that it is like the original? I certainly will not, and will be suspicious as to his motives and agenda. Amazing that you would trust such a guy. Today we call such people as scoundrel and opportunist, or else a flat-out scammer.

silver_ring

10-10-03, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
How can you even begin to compare something with what's not there anymore? Of course Uthman said it's the same copy; but since the original was burned, you just have to take his word for it, right? Would you even trust a guy who burns what you hold sacred, make a copy of his own and blatantly announce that it is like the original? I certainly will not, and will be suspicious as to his motives and agenda. Amazing that you would trust such a guy. Today we call such people as scoundrel and opportunist, or else a flat-out scammer.

If we believed that Uthman burnt the original quran then means that we believe in the Mohammed(s) and if we believed in Mohammed that means we believe in Quran and if we beliebed in quran thats mean we should believe what in side the quran and if we believe what the quran said then we should believe in every verses in quran and ALLah said ...in His BOok
" We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)

Milliardo Peacecraft

10-10-03, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by silver_ring
If we believed that Uthman burnt the original quran then means that we believe in the Mohammed(s)

I'm not following you, silver--so you believe that Uthman did burn the original. If that is so, then how can you believe that he didn't just burn the original and made up his own for his own purposes then? You see, Uthman did a very good job at this, burning the original and then having him set up Islam as he viewed it. Is this what the Prophet envisioned? I highly doubt it.

silver_ring

10-10-03, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
I'm not following you, silver--so you believe that Uthman did burn the original. If that is so, then how can you believe that he didn't just burn the original and made up his own for his own purposes then? You see, Uthman did a very good job at this, burning the original and then having him set up Islam as he viewed it. Is this what the Prophet envisioned? I highly doubt it.

he living alone ?? u think was no body there ??

sanwin25

10-10-03, 07:23 AM

You weren't there, so you will never know.

Please refer to the other thread where I asked how you would deal with something very very very precious to you.

mkongwe

10-10-03, 11:06 AM

[i]Originally posted by sanwin25 .You weren't there, so you will never know.

Please refer to the other thread where I asked how you would deal with something very very very precious to you.

God’s word has been changed

Jeremiah 8:7-8
“Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord. How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain”.

Jeremiah 36:23-24
“And it come to pass, that when Je-hu-di had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words”

Luke 1:14
“FOR AS MUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph-i-lus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed”

Thus does the Bible itself bear witness to alterations, the additions and subtractions that have been taking place in the Judaic-Christian scriptures.

Milliardo Peacecraft

10-10-03, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Jeremiah 8:7-8
“Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord. How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain”.

You really need to take Bible study before making such posts mkongwe. As I've said before, you take such verses out of its context by simply quoting them, even if you (and those who taught these verses to you as "proof" against Christianity) you don't know what they mean.

First of all, the first verse refers to the scribes and Pharisees who would go aganst Jesus; Jeremiah is one of the prophecy books which talk about the Messiah. In fact, the judgment as said in this verse is the coming of Jesus, and the very next sentence is the response of the Pharisees, as we witness in the Gospels (this is also foretold in Isaiah).

Jeremiah 36:23-24
“And it come to pass, that when Je-hu-di had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words”

I do not know what this quotation even has to do with Christianity i the first place. However, this is part of the narrative of Baruch writing Jeremiah's prophecies. This seems more historical than prophetic in context.

Luke 1:14
“FOR AS MUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph-i-lus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed”

Again, this quote has nothing to do with your false claims and charges; in fact quoting this verse defends Christianity and in so doing you actually make the claim of Christianity to be true. See mkongwe why I say you don't know what you're posting about? You make and quote this very verse which defends the claims of Christianity, since Luke testifies on Jesus' behalf and makes certain that all that were written are true...

Checking Luke 1:14, we find that this actually is the narrative of John the Baptizer's birth. The quote, I am most certain, is from one of Paul's letters, not Luke's. Be that as it may, the quote affirms the truthfulness of Christianity and her missionaries.

IceTea

10-10-03, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by jack
So you say that the original was not burnt and copies made from memory were not sent out?

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with burning an old copy of the Quran if no one can read use it. It's alos ok to dig a hole in the ground and bury it since it's an old copy.

silver_ring

13-10-03, 02:24 AM

BACK TO THE TOPIC

we have some questions won't answer ,, as many members have tried to answer but no one could give answers ,

mkongwe

13-10-03, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Again, this quote has nothing to do with your false claims and charges; in fact quoting this verse defends Christianity and in so doing you actually make the claim of Christianity to be true. See mkongwe why I say you don't know what you're posting about? You make and quote this very verse which defends the claims of Christianity, since Luke testifies on Jesus' behalf and makes certain that all that were written are true...

If Luke said that he himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitness and not as words inspired by God, do you still believe the bible is God’s word?

Welcome back
What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary?
We request answer from the Bible and not from dictionary, phrase book or website because the Bible says in Revelation 22: 18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any ones takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
For example: What is the name of the son of Mary?
The answer is Jesus, read Matthew 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus”

sanwin25

13-10-03, 11:46 PM

You seem to be shooting around like a ping pong ball, one minute on this topic, another minute on that.

Every time MP shoots down one of your feeble posts, you take off in another direction altogether.

Who do you think you are kidding ?

Some more time studying Physics, Chemistry, Biology would have done you a wold of good rather than all those years in the madrassa.

silver_ring

13-10-03, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
You seem to be shooting around like a ping pong ball, one minute on this topic, another minute on that.

Every time MP shoots down one of your feeble posts, you take off in another direction altogether.

Who do you think you are kidding ?

Some more time studying Physics, Chemistry, Biology would have done you a wold of good rather than all those years in the madrassa.

mp depending on you in her posts ?!!!, when she post some thing , you post next her, pushing her in front :D D:

Milliardo Peacecraft

14-10-03, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
If Luke said that he himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitness and not as words inspired by God, do you still believe the bible is God’s word?

ERven in court, if one is not an eyewitness--one who has first hand knowledge of a crime--but is still witness, or has knowledge, that person is still deemed as credible. So it is with someone who witness to Jesus. You are not an eyewitness to Mohammed, yet you are a witness to his faith. So then I should not believe you because you are not an eyewitness?

Welcome back
What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary?

Why is this important to you? I have pointed out to you many times the oneness of Christ and God, and at the same time this oneness is distinct. Go back to my posts if you cannot understand this.

mkongwe

15-10-03, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft ERven in court, if one is not an eyewitness--one who has first hand knowledge of a crime--but is still witness, or has knowledge, that person is still deemed as credible. So it is with someone who witness to Jesus. You are not an eyewitness to Mohammed, yet you are a witness to his faith. So then I should not believe you because you are not an eyewitness?

Is Bible God's words or eyewitness words?

Why is this important to you? I have pointed out to you many times the oneness of Christ and God, and at the same time this oneness is distinct. Go back to my posts if you cannot understand this.

The name of the Father is there in the Bible but you will never see it because you are false Christ as prophet Jesus says in Matthew 24:23-24 Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christ and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Prophet Jesus came for twelve tribes of Israel only as he mentioned in Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.

And he warned you in Mathew 7:21-23 “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? and then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.

BEWARE before it is too late as Jesus said in Luke 13:25-27 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us. He will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, we ate and drunk in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!

This is the challenge for all people who call themselves Christian and if you are not evildoers, tell us what is the name of the Father according to Jesus?

Qur’an 5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians” because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Among them who reverts to Islam are Anselm Tormeeda (An ex-priest, the greatest Christian scholar (during) the 14th century, author of the Gift to the Intelligent for Refuting the arguments of the Christian), Chaplain Yusuf Estes (Former Christian and Federal Prison Chaplain), Kenneth l. Jenkins (Former minister and Elder of the Church), Al Hajj Abubakar John Mwaipopo (former Luthereen Arc Bishop Martin John Mwaipopo), Professor Abdul I-Ahad Dawud (former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D, Roman Catholic priest), ….......Millions
_________________________________________________

Qur’an 36:9 And We have put a bar in front of them and a bar behind them, and further, We have covered them up; so that they cannot see.

sanwin25

16-10-03, 05:17 AM

How can you prove that the Quran is not Mohammed's or Uthmans word ?

I mean, really prove it ?

Apart from that standard circular logic, the Quran says so ?

I wait for your response with baited breath.

Milliardo Peacecraft

16-10-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is Bible God's words or eyewitness words?

It is God's word. However, God speaks through men as well, as we see with Moses. This is a prime example of God delivering His word through a man. The same is true then with the Bible: through men God speaks. So it is as well with the Qur'an, and other books.

The name of the Father is there in the Bible but you will never see it because you are false

The only time I remember Jesus use the Aramaic word was when He said "Abba"--which simply means Father. The name of God as known to the Israelites was YHWH, or the I AM. Please refer again back to my earlier post concerning Jesus revealing the I AM to be Him as well, which points to Himself as part of the Trinity.

Christ as prophet Jesus says in Matthew 24:23-24 Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christ and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

This speaks of the End Times, when there will be false prophets who will announce a message different than that of Christ's. In that vein then, Islam is considered a false religion by Christians because it shows a path other than what Christ has shown.

Prophet Jesus came for twelve tribes of Israel only as he mentioned in Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.

He came for the world, not just Israel:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God gave Jesus to the world, not just Israel. Jesus will later commission His Disciples to preach the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). It is not just Israel that He came for.

And he warned you in Mathew 7:21-23 “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? and then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.

This should be seen in the context of the Olivette Discourse from Matthew 5-7, in which near the end He said this. The Discourse speaks of God blessing those who do His will with a willing and pure heart. Those who do mighty works in His name, but do it out of selfish interests, are the ones who shall be cast out.

BEWARE before it is too late as Jesus said in Luke 13:25-27 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us. He will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, we ate and drunk in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!

The same context as in Matthew 7:21-23, in that Jesus speaks here of doing God's will.

You see, mkongwe, try as you might, you always end up losing and looking foolish with your random quoting.

Sanwin: it is amusing that these people still try to use the logic, "but the Qur'an says so", when such logic is invalid in that no book will try to invalidate itself, so of course the Qur'an will always say it is true, and others are false. But these people do not look at other evidences, which is history itself. They try to co-opt the Jewish prophets and make them their own. God often is known in the Old Testament as the God of Israel, or else the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Where do they get the idea that the Old Testament prophets are somehow Muslim, when these prophets spoke to the people of Israel, and not to the tribe of Ishmael? I still wonder why Islam tries to co-opt these prophets, or maybe they have simply lost any semblance of originality and blatantly rip off other people. In this day and age, we call such a thing as plagiarism, which esseintially the Qur'an is but a plagiarised work, taking wholesale from the Bible and the Torah.

mkongwe

17-10-03, 11:28 AM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft . It is God's word. However, God speaks through men as well, as we see with Moses. This is a prime example of God delivering His word through a man. The same is true then with the Bible: through men God speaks. So it is as well with the Qur'an, and other books.
Is Bible God's words or eyewitness words?

Luke said that he himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitness and not as words inspired by God.

In the first five books of the Bible- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy- there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is not the Author of these books, but EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:
“And the LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Away, get thee down…”
“And MOSES SAID UNTO THE LORD, the people cannot come…”
“And the LORD SAID UNTO MOSES, Go on before the people…”
“And the LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES, Saying…”
“And the LORD SAID UNTO MOSES, Get down, charge the…”
It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. These indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.

MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? “So Moses …DIED …And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) …he was 120 years old when he DIED… And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like Moses…”(Deut.34: 5-10)

Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.
“And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) And HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus).” (Matthew 9:9)
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the “He’s” and the “Him’s” of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard – a hearsay account, If we cannot even attribute this “book of dreams” (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?

The only time I remember Jesus use the Aramaic word was when He said "Abba"--which simply means Father. The name of God as known to the Israelites was YHWH, or the I AM. Please refer again back to my earlier post concerning Jesus revealing the I AM to be Him as well, which points to Himself as part of the Trinity.

I will remind you: Abba, Baba, Ba, Abui, Daddy and Father all have the same meaning.

The question is, What is the name of the Father according to prophet Jesus son of Mary (Peace be upon him) ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

20-10-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is Bible God's words or eyewitness words?

Like I said, it is both.

Luke said that he himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitness and not as words inspired by God.

That is only Luke. Remember that there are 4 Gospel writers, as well as others who wrote letters in the New Testament. John was an Apostle of Christ who was with Him, and os provides us with an eyewitness account. So too does Mark. Another one which we can consider as eyewitnesses would be Peter and James, both who were Apostles of Christ and wrote letters to the Christian communities. So it is not just Luke who we should take into account for.

In the first five books of the Bible- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy- there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is not the Author of these books, but EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them.

Give me the [i]exact verses from which they came, so we can see as well in what context were these statements were made. But even without such, we can see that these are hardly proofs, as it only shows that God can speak either directly or indirectly to His people. God spoke first to them through Moses (it wasn't even exactly direct), then these things written down for posterity. God is not the author of these books? My good man, you do not even know what you're saying. Go back and study them and post again here after you've done it.

“And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) And HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus).” (Matthew 9:9)
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the “He’s” and the “Him’s” of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard – a hearsay account, If we cannot even attribute this “book of dreams” (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?

Do you even know about literature? That one can write in the third person and yet be the author and the character in a story at the same time? Those are not proofs. Some might think it is, some might not see them as proofs. No serious Biblical scholar has made a definitive claim on authorship or non-authorship of the Gospels.

I will remind you: Abba, Baba, Ba, Abui, Daddy and Father all have the same meaning.

Yes. And so...?

mkongwe

21-10-03, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

That is only Luke. Remember that there are 4 Gospel writers, as well as others who wrote letters in the New Testament. John was an Apostle of Christ who was with Him, and os provides us with an eyewitness account. So too does Mark. Another one which we can consider as eyewitnesses would be Peter and James, both who were Apostles of Christ and wrote letters to the Christian communities. So it is not just Luke who we should take into account for.

Do you even know about literature? That one can write in the third person and yet be the author and the character in a story at the same time? Those are not proofs. Some might think it is, some might not see them as proofs. No serious Biblical scholar has made a definitive claim on authorship or non-authorship of the Gospels.

Is Bible God's words,eyewitness words,third person words or literature?

Is Church a pub?
God telling us in the Bible: - Leviticus 10:8 And Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are
division among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognize. When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s super that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead
with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have house to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I command you in this? No I will not.

Is Church a discotheque?
God is telling: - Amos 5:23-24 Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 The woman should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Proverb 28:9 If one turns away his ears from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

My question is: WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO JESUS SON OF MARY (PEACE BE UPON HIM)?

MoonChild

21-10-03, 11:26 PM

You two started going around in circles a long time ago... but this one caught my attention.

I just have to wonder - first you bring up apparent discrepencies between Old and New Testament which have nothing to do with the topic (except, apparently, to highlight why for you the bible is a bunch of garbage), then you ask in big capital letters a question having nothing to do with the rest of your post.

Just what is the relevence of drinking and music in the church to what Jesus called God?

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-10-03, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is Bible God's words,eyewitness words,third person words or literature?

You're being silly. Go and read my posts. You're only being annoying, and there's no more substance in what you post.

Is Church a pub?
God telling us in the Bible: - Leviticus 10:8 And Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

This command of God is specific only in the Aaronic priesthood, the Levites. It did not even apply to most Israelites.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are
division among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognize. When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s super that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead
with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have house to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I command you in this? No I will not.

Paul here is making an analogy in which those who are in discord in which they simply eat and drink without care of the host (Christ), and in so doing disrespect Him. Again, context.

Is Church a discotheque?
God is telling: - Amos 5:23-24 Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Amos is a prophetic book, and here God is telling the Israelites that He is more pleased with righteousness than a pretense in worshipping Him. Recall that in the prophetic books Israel had turned away from the Lord, and that He again reminds His people of the promised Messiah who shall set them aright.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 The woman should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Paul notes here a woman's role. It does not mean a woman should be quiet per se, as for instance when praying or responding one must speak. But Paul here is noting that a woman should be under man's dominion.

My question is: WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO JESUS SON OF MARY (PEACE BE UPON HIM)?

I have given you the answer. Jesus called him Father, and later on revealed God to be YHWH--I AM. Jesus subsequently then reveals that He is also the I AM. God's name, if you should know, is never revealed in Judaism. It is often known only in the tetragramation--the Holy Name which is YHWH, or in more modern usage Yahweh. The name of God is unspoken in ancient Israel out of respect of the Lord. Often what is used are titles accorded to Him--Adonai (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01146a.htm), El Shaddai, Elohim (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm), etc.

sanwin25

22-10-03, 06:10 AM

MP.

Much as I admire you effort, I fear you are wasting your time.

Our madrass boy here is just playing you along. Notice how 95% if his thread is filled with random quotations and then he asks the same old question once again, one which you answered him long back.

Now I will ask madrassa boy.

Why did Uthman burn the copies of the Quran ?

Come now, you pretend to know so much about the Bible, please do share something about your knowledge of the Quran.

Milliardo Peacecraft

22-10-03, 10:45 AM

OT: Your PM box is full. I tried to PM you sanwin, or maybe I should just email you?

sanwin25

22-10-03, 03:44 PM

That would be better. I have emptied my PM inbox anyway.

mkongwe

23-10-03, 09:03 PM

[i]Originally posted by MoonChild. You two started going around in circles a long time ago... but this one caught my attention.
I just have to wonder - first you bring up apparent discrepencies between Old and New Testament which have nothing to do with the topic (except, apparently, to highlight why for you the bible is a bunch of garbage), then you ask in big capital letters a question having nothing to do with the rest of your post.
Just what is the relevence of drinking and music in the church to what Jesus called God?

Wine and Music in the church is part of your belief, for that reason you don’t know the name of the Father and this is the challenge for all Christians in the world and Jesus call you evildoers in Matthew 7: 21-23 and "all you workers of iniquity " in Luke 13: 25-27. If you are not evildoers what is the name of the Father according to prophet Jesus son of Mary (Peace be upon him)?

mkongwe

23-10-03, 09:35 PM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft. You're being silly. Go and read my posts. You're only being annoying, and there's no more substance in what you post.

Matthew 1:16 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

[i]This command of God is specific only in the Aaronic priesthood, the Levites. It did not even apply to most Israelites

Are you better than Jesus?
Prophet Jesus says in Matthew 17:18 “think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

[i]Paul here is making an analogy in which those who are in discord in which they simply eat and drink without care of the host (Christ), and in so doing disrespect Him. Again, context.

Paul ask you:What! Do you not have house to eat and drink in?

[i]Paul notes here a woman's role. It does not mean a woman should be quiet , as for instance when praying or responding one must speak. But Paul here is noting that a woman should be under man's dominion.

Paul said "The woman should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak"
Revelation 22:18-19 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophesy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of the prophesy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

[i]I have given you the answer. Jesus called him Father, and later on revealed God to be YHWH--I AM. Jesus subsequently then reveals that He is also the I AM. God's name, if you should know, is never revealed in Judaism. It is often known only in the tetragramation--the Holy Name which is YHWH, or in more modern usage Yahweh. The name of God is unspoken in ancient Israel out of respect of the Lord. Often what is used are titles accorded to Him--
So the answer Jesus called him Father and the name of the Queen of Great Britain is Queen.
My quesion is : WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO JESUS SON OF MARY (Peace be upon him)?

IceTea

23-10-03, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe

My quesion is : WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO JESUS SON OF MARY (Peace be upon him)?

mkongwe, you are doing a good job here, well done!.

But I wonder why MP was not able to answer you above Q up to now :rolleyes:

Milliardo Peacecraft

23-10-03, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Wine and Music in the church is part of your belief

Yes, it is, as much as it was part of Jewish worship belief.

Matthew 1:16 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

You should understand the purposes of both writers in making the lineage, since in fact Jesus' lineage is only one, and that is to the Father, not to any human lineage. However, in both cases both writers are pointing at important theological points. Matthew shows Jesus to be a Jew's Jew--someone who is loyal and true to the Commandments of God as opposed to the Pharisees. Luke shows that Jesus indeed is the Savior, as His lineage stretches all the way back to Abraham and all the way to God Himself. His role as Messiah and Savior is taken into account by Luke.

Are you better than Jesus?
Prophet Jesus says in Matthew 17:18 “think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

And what has this to do with you earlier point on wine and such? I have shown you that the point of the passage in Leviticus pertains only to the Levites, the Aaronic priesthood conferred to Aaron and his sons, not to the Israelites in general, so this comment of yours has very little relevance to the topic. But even so, it shows us that Jesus came to fulfill the law through Him, not through anyone else.

Paul ask you:What! Do you not have house to eat and drink in?

It is obvious you do not even understand the passages you quote from. Go back and read it again; it was a rhetorical question.

My quesion is : WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO JESUS SON OF MARY (Peace be upon him)?

I have given you the answer many times. Maybe what you are looking for is this, because you are just continuing to ask it: what is the name of the Father said by Jesus according to the Qur'an? One, neither the ancient Israelites nor Christians believe in the Qur'an. Both faiths do not see the Qur'an to be true, nor a new revelation, nor Islam to be the true religion. Both faiths see Islam to be false, to be an abomination before God, and should be treated as such because it co-opts the Jewish prophets, something which not even Christianity has done. So I have said to you, Jesus revealed God to be the I AM, YHWH. In turn, Jesus then states He is also the I AM. Because of this, the Jews charge Him with blasphemy. Now I hope this is clear with you. Go back to your Qur'an then, and hide behind it. You are not even worth my time.

mkongwe

24-10-03, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft I have given you the answer many times. Maybe what you are looking for is this, because you are just continuing to ask it: what is the name of the Father said by Jesus according to the Qur'an? One, neither the ancient Israelites nor Christians believe in the Qur'an. Both faiths do not see the Qur'an to be true, nor a new revelation, nor Islam to be the true religion. Both faiths see Islam to be false, to be an abomination before God, and should be treated as such because it co-opts the Jewish prophets, something which not even Christianity has done. So I have said to you, Jesus revealed God to be the I AM, YHWH. In turn, Jesus then states He is also the I AM. Because of this, the Jews charge Him with blasphemy. Now I hope this is clear with you. Go back to your Qur'an then, and hide behind it. You are not even worth my time.

Psalms 115:4-8
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Those who make them are like them; so are all who trusts in them.

“THOSE WHO MAKE THEM ARE LIKE THEM”. You have eyes but you can not see.
Remove idols in the church may be you will see the name of the father according to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him).

Matthew 28:16 Jesus talks to his disciples "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Did they baptize you in the name of AM I or YHWH?

My question is:WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER ACCORDING TO PROPHET JESUS SON OF MARY (Peace be upon him).

silver_ring

24-10-03, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
It is God's word. However, God speaks through men as well, as we see with Moses. This is a prime example of God delivering His word through a man. The same is true then with the Bible: through men God speaks. So it is as well with the Qur'an, and other books.

The only time I remember Jesus use the Aramaic word was when He said "Abba"--which simply means Father. The name of God as known to the Israelites was YHWH, or the I AM. Please refer again back to my earlier post concerning Jesus revealing the I AM to be Him as well, which points to Himself as part of the Trinity.

This speaks of the End Times, when there will be false prophets who will announce a message different

than that of Christ's. In that vein then, Islam is considered a false religion by Christians because it shows a path other than what Christ has shown.

He came for the world, not just Israel:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God gave Jesus to the world, not just Israel. Jesus will later commission His Disciples to preach the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). It is not just Israel that He came for.

This should be seen in the context of the Olivette Discourse from Matthew 5-7, in which near the end He said this. The Discourse speaks of God blessing those who do His will with a willing and pure heart. Those who do mighty works in His name, but do it out of selfish interests, are the ones who shall be cast out.

The same context as in Matthew 7:21-23, in that Jesus speaks here of doing God's will.

You see, mkongwe, try as you might, you always end up losing and looking foolish with your random quoting.

Sanwin: it is amusing that these people still try to use the logic, "but the Qur'an says so", when such logic is invalid in that no book will try to invalidate itself, so of course the Qur'an will always say it is true, and others are false. But these people do not look at other evidences, which is history itself. They try to co-opt the Jewish prophets and make them their own. God often is known in the Old Testament as the God of Israel, or else the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Where do they get the idea that the Old Testament prophets are somehow Muslim, when these prophets spoke to the people of Israel, and not to the tribe of Ishmael? I still wonder why Islam tries to co-opt these prophets, or maybe they have simply lost any semblance of originality and blatantly rip off other people. In this day and age, we call such a thing as plagiarism, which esseintially the Qur'an is but a plagiarised work, taking wholesale from the Bible and the Torah.

i want to ask you , all of that was from your own knowleghe or your replies are depending on your mood?? or .. you want to argue people only??!! .. do not use your mouth only!! try to use your brain too , your reply is unacceptable..

IceTea

24-10-03, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58)

Notes on John 8:

12 [24,28] I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh.

24 [58] Came to be, I AM: the Greek word used for "came to be" is the one used of all creation in the prologue (John 1:1-2), while the word used for "am" is the one reserved for the Logos.

What does I AM means here? And how come he says Amen, amen if he is God??

mkongwe

30-10-03, 03:57 PM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft.Maybe what you are looking for is this, because you are just continuing to ask it: what is the name of the Father said by Jesus according to the Qur'an?

My question is:What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

sanwin25

30-10-03, 05:03 PM

My question is:What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

And my question to you mkongwe is, who authorised Uthman to burn the original copies of the Quran and why did he do it.

Milliardo Peacecraft

30-10-03, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
What does I AM means here? And how come he says Amen, amen if he is God??

IAM--simply means The Name, or it also stands for YHWH. Again, recall that for the ancient Israelites the name of God cannot be mentioned out of respect. Why does Jesus say, amen, amen? Others use, truly, truly, which is equivalent to it, since amen means yes--it means one is speaking the truth, and Jesus says that twice to stress the truthfulness of His words.

mkongwe--you know very well that the New Testament does not record Jesus mentioning God's name other than the I AM, and often He mentions God as the Father--something Muslims do not accept nor understand. So, your question becomes really silly, though as I understand it, in the Qur'an Jesus seems to have mentioned God's name. Do understand, like I will repeat, that both Jews and Christians do not accept the Qur'an, and for both relgiions--which incidentally came before Islam--the Qur'an is neither true, nor is Islam true, nor do we see Islam to be the only religion. We do see Islam to be false, the Qur'an to not represent the religion of the Old Testament prophets, and as we have said so many times, Islam has this penchant to co-opt people and events that is not of their history. What we do see is that the Qur'an is a wholesale copying of both the Torah and the Bible, thus we do not even see it to be original in any way. So there is your answer, and you can take it any way you want it to.

sanwin25

31-10-03, 04:35 AM

MP. and the next question from mkongwe will be

My question is:What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

mkongwe

31-10-03, 05:10 AM

[i]Originally posted by sanwin25.MP. and the next question from mkongwe will be

Genesis 4:17 "Cain knew his wife"
My question is who were the parents of Cain’s wife?

Question #1. What is the name of the Father according to prophet Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him)?

IceTea

31-10-03, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Do understand, like I will repeat, that both Jews and Christians do not accept the Qur'an, and for both relgiions--which incidentally came before Islam--the Qur'an is neither true, nor is Islam true, nor do we see Islam to be the only religion. We do see Islam to be false, the Qur'an to not represent the religion of the Old Testament prophets, and as we have said so many times, Islam has this penchant to co-opt people and events that is not of their history. What we do see is that the Qur'an is a wholesale copying of both the Torah and the Bible, thus we do not even see it to be original in any way. So there is your answer, and you can take it any way you want it to.

If you read verse [3:186] it's like talking about you and what you said above:

"Ye shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and ye shall certainly Hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if ye persevere patiently, and guard against evil,-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs."

On the other hand the following verse [3:199] present a fact that not all people of the book are the same as above catagory:

"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and Allah is swift in account"

Milliardo Peacecraft

31-10-03, 10:41 AM

Icebag, like I said, we do not accept the Qur'an, so basically quoting it in this topic bears little meaning.

Mkongwe: Please reply to what I've asked: are you referring to what Jesus said is God's name in the Qur'an? Because the New Testament does not record Him saying it, apart from His referral to God as the I AM, and consequently pointing to Himself to be the I AM as well. As well, do explain to us why you ask such irrelevant questions such as the parents of Cain's wife--are you going to prove to us again the validity of Islam by pointing to people mentioned only in passing in the Old Testament? Now that would be very amusing, just to make yourselves valid. In which case it doesn't even work that way, so you might as well go back again and hide behind the Qur'an and comfort yourselves with your book, since that is where you find your own affirmation.

You did ask before if we're baptized in YHWH's name, and the answer is in the affirmative. All Christians are baptized in God's name, which is also the Trinity.

IceTea

31-10-03, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Icebag, like I said, we do not accept the Qur'an, so basically quoting it in this topic bears little meaning.

You don't accept it becasue it present to you that facts which you don't like and instead you choose to close your eyes and your brain from the truth.

Milliardo Peacecraft

31-10-03, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
You don't accept it becasue it present to you that facts which you don't like and instead you choose to close your eyes and your brain from the truth.

Nope, Teabag, now you got it wrong. We don't accept it because: 1) the ancient Israelites never did and never will call themselves Muslims.

2) The Qur'an was never known to them, was not made known to them, was not revealed to them in any form

3) The Qur'an is a corruption of both the Torah and the Bible, from which most of its stories originated.

So what truth are you saying, Teabag? Actually, you should be thanking both Judaism and Christianity for providing you with the basis for your beloved Qur'an; if not, Mohammed would probably be looking at the Mahabarata and maybe even the Kama Sutra for inspiration, and you'd get instead 1001 ways to please a woman in bed instead of the stories that have all been shamelessly ripped off from both Judaism and Christianity. Now isn't that something to think about, Icebag?

IceTea

01-11-03, 01:04 PM

MP, there is no point in throwing useless comments, if you can prove any of them then go ahead. But first you need to look at your original books not the correpted versions.

Milliardo Peacecraft

01-11-03, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
MP, there is no point in throwing useless comments, if you can prove any of them then go ahead. But first you need to look at your original books not the correpted versions.

Teabag, the proof is very clear: which came first? Islam is much later than both Judaism and Christianity. It's also not a coincidence that the stories in the Qur'an can both be found in the Torah and Bible. Incidentally, the Old Testament books in both the Torah and Bible are identical; the New Testament is seen by Christians to be the continuation of the Old. Christianity flowed out from Judaism as the Apostles were Jews first, and a number of the early converts were Jews. Before 90 A.D. Jews and Christians went to both synagogue and Temple. These are all not so with Islam. So whose book is corrupted? It would not be the first, as this is the original. However, that which is later on and bears striking resemblance, and altered to look seemingly original, would be more doubtful. This is the case with the Qur'an. You can then say whatever you want to defend your faith, but it is clear that you are but a recent religion to most, and your book but an altered copy of books of two other religions.

mkongwe

01-11-03, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft t=comic
Mkongwe: Please reply to what I've asked: are you referring to what Jesus said is God's name in the Qur'an?

In the Bible, please

because the New Testament does not record Him saying it, apart from His referral to God as the I AM, and consequently pointing to Himself to be the I AM as well.

I have told you before remove Idols in the church otherwise you will never see the name of the Father according to Jesus.

[i]You did ask before if we're baptized in YHWH's name, and the answer is in the affirmative. All Christians are baptized in God's name, which is also the Trinity.

What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

Come to Islam I will guide to the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible.

sanwin25

01-11-03, 05:53 PM

Come to Islam I will guide to the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible.

Aha, so that was the agenda.

On behalf of MP and myself, I would like to say, Thanks but no Thanks.

We prefer to use the brains God gave us to think, not put them in cold storage and act like a parrot.

Milliardo Peacecraft

02-11-03, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25
Aha, so that was the agenda.

Heh, we've known that agenda of theirs since this thread started. No thanks, mkongwe, as sanwin said. If that's your whole thrust, mkongwe, then you're simply wasting our time.

mkongwe

03-11-03, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft Heh, we've known that agenda of theirs since this thread started. No thanks, mkongwe, as sanwin said. If that's your whole thrust, mkongwe, then you're simply wasting our time.

Is it agenda?

Christian they are using Jesus name as their logo for their Christian project, which there is a reason behind and I feel sorry for poor Christian who doesn’t know what’s going on.
Christianity is not teaching of Jesus but of Paul. He was not one of Jesus disciples. He strongly opposed Jesus during his time.
Paul says in Acts 26:9-11 “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem; I not only shut up many of the saints in prison, by authority from chief priest, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.

Jesus prophesied that in John 15:20-21 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.

Do you know him? What is his name according to Jesus in the Bible?

mkongwe

03-11-03, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25 Aha, so that was the agenda.
On behalf of MP and myself, I would like to say, Thanks but no Thanks.
We prefer to use the brains God gave us to think, not put them in cold storage and act like a parrot.

So, use your brain God gave to you and answer our question. And don't put in cold storage and act like a parrot, let the Bible speak.
They baptised you in the name of the Father.

Simple question,what is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

IceTea

03-11-03, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by sanwin25

We prefer to use the brains God gave us to think, not put them in cold storage and act like a parrot.

Which God gave you the brain?

sanwin25

03-11-03, 09:02 AM

Where were you when YOUR GOD was giving out brains ?

IceTea

03-11-03, 09:04 AM

Who taught you to answer a question by a question?

sanwin25

03-11-03, 03:44 PM

Learned that from you.

Milliardo Peacecraft

03-11-03, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Is it agenda?

I wouldn't know--you tell me. Sanwin and I see it as your agenda, and for all intents and purposes we will treat your posts as your agenda into making us Muslims, so no thanks.

Christian they are using Jesus name as their logo for their Christian project, which there is a reason behind and I feel sorry for poor Christian who doesn’t know what’s going on.
Christianity is not teaching of Jesus but of Paul. He was not one of Jesus disciples. He strongly opposed Jesus during his time.

Yes, he did opposed Jesus at first, until Christ Himself told him to get up on the road to Damascus. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's not one of the original 12 that he is no longer a Disciple. To make an analogy, we shouldn't believe in you then, since you're not from the Prophet's time, nor lived with him, nor spoke to him. Since you don't, what makes you credible? You're not, by your own words, since you haven't seen the Prophet.

Paul says in Acts 26:9-11 “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem; I not only shut up many of the saints in prison, by authority from chief priest, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.

Note that this is late in Acts, after Paul's conversion. Paul here is testifying to what he did, and testifies to his conversion to Christ. Mkongwe really, you are such an embarrassment that you make such random quotes. Do you even understand what you're qouting?

Jesus prophesied that in John 15:20-21 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.

Jesus here is differentiating between one who persecutes those who follow Him and those who follow Him. To which Paul belongs to the latter, to the one who kept his words. Note that Paul suffered for Christ later on in the hands of both Jews and Romans, so yes he was indeed persecuted in Christ's name.

Milliardo Peacecraft

03-11-03, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
Learned that from you.

Icetea-->owned :D

mkongwe

05-11-03, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B][font=comic sans ms]I wouldn't know--you tell me. Sanwin and I see it as your agenda, and for all intents and purposes we will treat your posts as your agenda into making us Muslims, so no thanks.

Yes, he did opposed Jesus at first, until Christ Himself told him to get up on the road to Damascus. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's not one of the original 12 that he is no longer a Disciple. To make an analogy, we shouldn't believe in you then, since you're not from the Prophet's time, nor lived with him, nor spoke to him. Since you don't, what makes you credible? You're not, by your own words, since you haven't seen the Prophet.

Note that this is late in Acts, after Paul's conversion. Paul here is testifying to what he did, and testifies to his conversion to Christ. Mkongwe really, you are such an embarrassment that you make such random quotes. Do you even understand what you're qouting?

Jesus here is differentiating between one who persecutes those who follow Him and those who follow Him. To which Paul belongs to the latter, to the one who kept his words. Note that Paul suffered for Christ later on in the hands of both Jews and Romans, so yes he was indeed persecuted in Christ's name.

Please we request you to answer with reference for example you said Paul and Damascus but we don’t know you refer to Accts 9:3-7, Accts 22:6-10, 26:12-18 or both.

Prophet Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him says in John 15:21 “because they do not know HIM who sent ME”
Simple english , you don't need Phd to understand the truth.
simple question,Do you know him? What is his name according to Jesus in the Bible?

Jesus said in Luke 13:25-27 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us. He will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, we ate (flesh of Jesus) and drunk (blood of Jesus) in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity! And he said to you in Mathew 7: 23 “ I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers”.
Your problem you pretend to know and you don’t know nothing, a simple question takes you more than a month.

If you don’t know tell us will guide you and no need for you to revert to Islam, I know your job but remember Jesus said in Matthew 6:24 “You cannot serve both God and money”.

What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him?

Milliardo Peacecraft

05-11-03, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Please we request you to answer with reference for example you said Paul and Damascus but we don’t know you refer to Accts 9:3-7, Accts 22:6-10, 26:12-18 or both.

Acts 9:3-7. You have an issue with that?

Prophet Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him says in John 15:21 “because they do not know HIM who sent ME”
Simple english , you don't need Phd to understand the truth.

Again, look at the context on which it was said. Jesus here is reminding His listeners of the persecution His followers will endure, and that because they do not rexognize Him (Jesus), those who persecute His followers do not recognize the Father who sent Him. This is also an indirect reference to the Pharisees and scribes who persecute Him, as well as unbelievers (yes, Muslims included) or non-Christians. So you can see that the reference points to you, and not to Christians.

Jesus said in Luke 13:25-27 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us. He will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, we ate (flesh of Jesus) and drunk (blood of Jesus) in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity! And he said to you in Mathew 7: 23 “ I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers”.

Again, read the context of what Jesus said. It is also the same context to the one you referred in John earlier. Can you tell me why someone writing for Christians would write that against the very people he is writing for? As I've said, no book--be it the Bible, Qur'an, or any other--would be used against itself. It would take non-believers to dream up such a notion.

What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him?

You have the verse, then tell us here. You keep asking and I've answered. You can turn the whole New Testament upside down and Jesus only revealed God's name as the I AM, and then pointed to Himself as the I AM as well. If you point to your Qur'an as the source then that invalidates your claim, since neither Christians nor Jews see Islam to be the true religion--neither now or ever. For both, Islam is a false religion and a false revelation, its book nothing but a corrupt copy of both holy books, and you can be sure that no serious scholar will even dream of saying Islam came before Judaism and Christianity. The record and history speaks for itself, mkongwe. You're losing, and you know you have long lost this debate, yet you keep the pretense you know things. Time and again I have pointed out to you how you quote Bible verses without understanding, and you still quote without understanding. That is why you keep losing the discussion.

IceTea

05-11-03, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
. If you point to your Qur'an as the source then that invalidates your claim, since neither Christians nor Jews see Islam to be the true religion--neither now or ever. For both, Islam is a false religion and a false revelation, its book nothing but a corrupt copy of both holy books, and you can be sure that no serious scholar will even dream of saying Islam came before Judaism and Christianity.

You have been repeating this nonsense for 100 times or more in this thread, and this proves that you are in a weak position and just repeat things like a sick parrot.

Milliardo Peacecraft

05-11-03, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by IceTea
You have been repeating this nonsense for 100 times or more in this thread, and this proves that you are in a weak position and just repeat things like a sick parrot.

Teabag, we made that charge against you first. Don't throw that on us, and as for what I said it is true, or maybe you've been living under a rock for a long time. Well, with the way you think, you might as well live under a rock. Too bad you can't accept the fact that your religion is but an imitation--and a poor one at that--of two religions that's ahead of you. In short: your position is very weak since many times I have refuted your claims on this thread, while mkongwe keeps repeating the same nonsense, to which he has not even provided the answer. We're interested then what he has to say, and just as soundly thrash whatever he will have to say, so sure I am about it.

mkongwe

05-11-03, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B][font=comic sans ms]Acts 9:3-7. You have an issue with that?t]

Again, look at the context on which it was said. Jesus here is reminding His listeners of the persecution His followers will endure, and that because they do not rexognize Him (Jesus), those who persecute His followers do not recognize the Father who sent Him. This is also an indirect reference to the Pharisees and scribes who persecute Him, as well as unbelievers (yes, Muslims included) or non-Christians. So you can see that the reference points to you, and not to Christians.

Again, read the context of what Jesus said. It is also the same context to the one you referred in John earlier. Can you tell me why someone writing for Christians would write that against the very people he is writing for? As I've said, no book--be it the Bible, Qur'an, or any other--would be used against itself. It would take non-believers to dream up such a notion.

You have the verse, then tell us here. You keep asking and I've answered. You can turn the whole New Testament upside down and Jesus only revealed God's name as the I AM, and then pointed to Himself as the I AM as well. If you point to your Qur'an as the source then that invalidates your claim, since neither Christians nor Jews see Islam to be the true religion--neither now or ever. For both, Islam is a false religion and a false revelation, its book nothing but a corrupt copy of both holy books, and you can be sure that no serious scholar will even dream of saying Islam came before Judaism and Christianity. The record and history speaks for itself, mkongwe. You're losing, and you know you have long lost this debate, yet you keep the pretense you know things. Time and again I have pointed out to you how you quote Bible verses without understanding, and you still quote without understanding. That is why you keep losing the discussion.

Please we request you to answer with reference for example you said Paul and Damascus but we don’t know you refer to Accts 9:3-7, Accts 22:6-10, 26:12-18 or both.
Please answer the above question.

Second you have to agree you're evildoers according to Jesus then I will guide you to the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible.
I will give you one week to think about it because I will be out of station for that period Insha'Allah.

Shakoosh Kabir

05-11-03, 07:07 PM

This is my 1000th posting. Having read the drivel posted on this thread - San and Milliardo excepted - I have come to the conclusion that, having some years ago abandoned the Catholicism with which I was born, I have never once over the last 2 years been convinced in the slightest by any of the arguments put forward by Muslims concerning Islam.

Milliardo Peacecraft

05-11-03, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Please we request you to answer with reference for example you said Paul and Damascus but we don’t know you refer to Accts 9:3-7, Accts 22:6-10, 26:12-18 or both.

Why would this be important to you? The main reference is Acts 9:3-7, which recounts the event as it happened.

Second you have to agree you're evildoers according to Jesus

Why would we even agree on such a thing? You don't even make sense at all then.

then I will guide you to the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible.

Thanks but no thanks--we know God and Jesus and our Faith. Let me ask you: Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him, so how can you know God when you do not even recognize Jesus?

I will give you one week to think about it

You are really desperate to make this post mkongwe. It's as if you're convincing yourself of the validity of Islam, since you so desperately want us to believe you. Sorry, but we're not that naive. Now I have challenged you in my last post: in what verse did Jesus said the name of God is in the Bible? You keep rambling about it, but don't make an answer yourself. By now you should have answered it. So the convenient thing now is to turn tails and give the pathetic excuse that you'll leave for a week--why, are you going to look for that verse?

I have come to the conclusion that, having some years ago abandoned the Catholicism with which I was born, I have never once over the last 2 years been convinced in the slightest by any of the arguments put forward by Muslims concerning Islam.

Thank you so much for that post, Shakoosh. As your fellow Catholic, with what you have found out and now know, maybe it is time to again learn all about your Catholic Faith and turn your back on a religion which makes claims, but cannot substantiate their claims.

sanwin25

06-11-03, 04:09 AM

Thanks Shakoosh.

It is sad to see Icy and Mkonge struggling for scraps to keep their beliefs going.

IceTea

07-11-03, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
Thanks Shakoosh.

It is sad to see Icy and Mkonge struggling for scraps to keep their beliefs going.

I wonder why Shakoosh supporting you :rolleyes:

And we are not struggling, we are living in the light of Islam and our path is clear like a sunny day.

Now it's your turn to find out the light.

Milliardo Peacecraft

07-11-03, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
I wonder why Shakoosh supporting you :rolleyes:

Because he's seen the light. After searching for answers, he realized the answer is not in Islam, and there he found his path. Time for you to start looking for that same light, Teabag, instead of still going aimlessly in the dark. And what happened to your friend silver? Did he also found the light and just stopped posting?

IceTea

10-11-03, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Because he's seen the light. After searching for answers, he realized the answer is not in Islam, and there he found his path. Time for you to start looking for that same light, Teabag, instead of still going aimlessly in the dark. And what happened to your friend silver? Did he also found the light and just stopped posting?

Don't tell me he's seen the light in the Trinity (human made concept)!

I don't have to look for any darkness if I'm already in the path of Islam which lights my way.

And about your friend silver no idea where is he, maybe he took some break during Ramadan. He is missed ;)

SadLad

10-11-03, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Because he's seen the light. After searching for answers, he realized the answer is not in Islam, and there he found his path.

He saw the light in the human-made concepets.Is it a joke?! :gap:

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

Time for you to start looking for that same light, Teabag, instead of still going aimlessly in the dark.
You made my day with this funny comment. :kewl: :color:

Milliardo Peacecraft

10-11-03, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by IceTea
Don't tell me he's seen the light in the Trinity (human made concept)!

I wonder which is more of a human concept--The Trinity which is a divine mystery, or a religion which plagiarizes and co-opts other religions' books and concepts? Common sense and reason dictates that the one which is into plagiarism is the one which is more man made. At least Shakoosh has seen enough to know that Islam can't even defend the undefendable.

I don't have to look for any darkness if I'm already in the path of Islam which lights my way.

This must be one way wherein many concepts of respect towards others are violated and call it a God-given right. Don't you think so, Teabag?

You made my day with this funny comment

One who is searching for the light, and has not found it in your faith, isn't necessarily funny. Since it calls into question what you believe, then what I find funny are those who still defend it, but fail dismally to do so. And what is even sadder is that it is happening even within the Islamic forum itself. Now that is indeed funny, and I am sure not too many of you are laughing now. One thing amusing is that you people have totally abandoned other discussions here (in this forum) concerning Islam, which is very sad. It shows that you are simply going through the motions of believing with your eyes closed. Now tell me, what kind of a light is that--SadLad, Teabag, mkongwe?

SadLad

10-11-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft

what kind of a light is that--SadLad, Teabag, mkongwe?
There is no light in this world except the light of Islam and you are free to believe it or not. In the end everyone will be judged according to his beliefs. So you better get out of the darkness you living in and search for the light which I'm sure you will find in Islam.

PEACE

Shakoosh Kabir

11-11-03, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by SadLad
There is no light in this world except the light of............In the end everyone will be judged according to his.... So you better get out of the darkness you living in and search for the light...

If you substitute the word "Christianity" for "Islam" it will then be apparent where you got all your ideas from way back when.

mkongwe

14-11-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Now I have challenged you in my last post: in what verse did Jesus said the name of God is in the Bible?

Matthew 28:16 Jesus talks to his disciples "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

This is the challenge for you and all christians in the world because they baptised you blindly following doctrines made by men.

Psalms 115:4-8
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Those who make them are like them; so are all who trusts in them.

“THOSE WHO MAKE THEM ARE LIKE THEM”.

My question is: What is the name of the Father in the Bible according to prophet Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him?

Answer is there in the Bible but refer Psalm 115:4-8,Matthew 7:21-23,Matthew 15:7-9, Matthew 24:24 & Luke 13 :25-27

mkongwe

14-11-03, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir If you substitute the word "Christianity" for "Islam" it will then be apparent where you got all your ideas from way back when.

All prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUT) were sent with the same message: that is, the total submission of mankind to Allah. This submission in Arabic is called Islam; Islam means also peace, peace between the Creator and His creatures. Unlike the names Judaism and Christianity, this name Islam has been given by Allah, the Creator Himself, as mentioned in surah 5:3 "This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor on you, and have chosen for you as the way of life AL-Islam as your religion. "

Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus NEVER claimed to establish Christianity on earth and NEVER called himself a Christian.

The word Christian is mention only three times in the New Testament and first by pagans and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., long after Jesus had left this earth. Read in Acts 11:26 "…And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch. "
Later by King Agrippa II to Paul in Acts 26:28 "Then Agrippa said unto Paul Almost thou persuedest me to be a Christian. "
So the name Christian was first given by foes rather than friends. And finally by Peter in his letter to comfort the faithful in I Peter 4:16 " Yet if any man suffer as Christian, let him not be ashamed…"

mkongwe

14-11-03, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir This is my 1000th posting. Having read the drivel posted on this thread - San and Milliardo excepted - I have come to the conclusion that, having some years ago abandoned the Catholicism with which I was born, I have never once over the last 2 years been convinced in the slightest by any of the arguments put forward by Muslims concerning Islam.

Prophet Jesus,the son of Mary answered you in Matthew 15:14 Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch.

Milliardo Peacecraft

14-11-03, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Matthew 28:16 Jesus talks to his disciples "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Thank you. It shows perfectly that you don't even know what you're quoting. You just practically defended Christianity by quoting that verse. Can you say mkongwe=owned?

This is the challenge for you and all christians in the world because they baptised you blindly following doctrines made by men.

Following what you just replied, this is a real laugh riot. Mkongwe, again: mkongwe=owned. Nuff said.

Neither the name Judaism nor Christianity is found in the Bible. No Israelite prophet mentioned the word Judaism. Jesus NEVER claimed to establish Christianity on earth and NEVER called himself a Christian.

Neither was Islam ever even mentioned mkongwe. The prophets spoke to the people of Israel; often in the Old Testament God is referred to as the God of Israel. Why would Jesus call Himself Christian when He is Christ Himself? That wouldn't even make sense. Though in a stricter sense Jesus is the first and foremost Christian because He follows what He taught. Did He claim to establish Christianity? Clearly the Disciples affirm this, so again you are lost, mkongwe.

mkongwe

17-11-03, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft Thank you. It shows perfectly that you don't even know what you're quoting. You just practically defended Christianity by quoting that verse. Can you say mkongwe=owned?

Now we want christiany to defend themselves and to tell us What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him?

Neither was Islam ever even mentioned mkongwe. The prophets spoke to the people of Israel; often in the Old Testament God is referred to as the God of Israel. Why would Jesus call Himself Christian when He is Christ Himself? That wouldn't even make sense. Though in a stricter sense Jesus is the first and foremost Christian because He follows what He taught. Did He claim to establish Christianity? Clearly the Disciples affirm this, so again you are lost, mkongwe.[/font] [/B]

EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY
=========================
Some people believe that CHRISTIANITY is a TRUE religion from God. It is derived from the word CHRIST, after Jesus Christ (pbuh) but according to the Bible, Jesus Christ (pbuh) commanded his disciples that the word CHRIST should not be taught to no man:

And it came to pass, as he (Jesus) was alone praying, his disciples were with him, and he asked them saying: Whom say the people that I am? They answering saying John the Baptist, but some say Elias and others say that one of the old prophets is risen again. He said unto them. "But whom say you that I am? Peter answering saying: The Christ of God. And he straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing. [Luke; 9:18-19].

It was in Jerusalem when Paul uttered the forbidden word, CHRIST which he testified to the Jews that Jesus was CHRIST as stated in the Bible:

And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. [Act; 18:5].

When Paul left Jerusalem with anger against the Jews who strongly opposed him, he shook his raiment in protest. He told them that their blood (will) be unto their heads and left to convert the Gentiles (Non-Jews) as he reported in the Bible:

And when they (Jews) opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his raiment and said unto them. Your blood be upon your own heads. I am clean from henceforth I will go (preaching) unto the Gentiles. [Acts; 18:6].

Because of his anger, Paul went to Rome from where he appointed himself as minister of Jesus Christ (pbuh) to the Gentiles who might accept his teachings under the Holy Ghost. In this regard, Paul wrote to Romans:

That I (Paul) should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God that the offering up of the Gentiles might be accepted, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. [Romans; 15:16].

From Rome, the term CHRISTIANS which was never mentioned by Jesus (pbuh) in Jerusalem was first mentioned by Saul (Paul) in Antioch to his disciples:

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus for to seek Saul (Paul) and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. [Acts; 11:25-26].

It can be said the religion of CHRISTIANS started in Rome, the cradle of Roman Catholic, the first and oldest world denomination of Christianity. It is taught throughout the world as Paul thanked God through Jesus Christ (pbuh), and contrary to many Christians belief, Paul testified to the Romans that Jesus Christ (pbuh) is not God:

First, I (Paul) thank God through Jesus Christ for your all that your (Roman) Faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. [Romans; 1:8].

From the above background, it is crystal clear that Christianity is not the religion from God as it was neither preached nor mentioned by Jesus Christ (pbuh) who also never mentioned the Christians, among are hostile to Muslims. Because they forgot a good part of the Message of ISLAM through Jesus Christ (pbuh) as stated in the Qur'an:

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the (Islamic) message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. [Qur'an; 5:14].

When a person asked Jesus Christ (pbuh) how he can get the Eternal life (Paradise), he replied that he must believe in "The Only True God Who sent Jesus Christ" (John 17:3), proving that Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself is neither God nor Lord as Paul wrote in the Bible. Rather, Jesus Christ (pbuh), was appointed by the Only True God to preach the same religion to the Jews only. His mission was completed by the Final Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
ordained by the Only True God to call Jews and Christians to worship the Only True God without association:

Say (Muhammad to the) People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you. That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not , from among ourselves Lords and patrons other than Allah." If they turn back say ye "Bear witness that we (at least) are MUSLIMS. (bowing to Allah’s will). [Qur’an; 3:64].

In spreading Peace, Muslims greet one another with ASSALAAM ALAYKUM (Peace be upon you), as Jesus Christ (pbuh) said to his followers but contrary to the Christians.

Milliardo Peacecraft

21-11-03, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Now we want christiany to defend themselves and to tell us What is the name of the Father according to Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him?

Mkongwe, mkongwe. You were the one who brought up that quote in answer. Now that was something that amused me to no end. I don't even need to defend Christianity when you do it for me.

EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY
=========================
Some people believe that CHRISTIANITY is a TRUE religion from God. It is derived from the word CHRIST, after Jesus Christ (pbuh) but according to the Bible, Jesus Christ (pbuh) commanded his disciples that the word CHRIST should not be taught to no man.

Interesting. Let us see then your verses.

And it came to pass, as he (Jesus) was alone praying, his disciples were with him, and he asked them saying: Whom say the people that I am? They answering saying John the Baptist, but some say Elias and others say that one of the old prophets is risen again. He said unto them. "But whom say you that I am? Peter answering saying: The Christ of God. And he straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing. [Luke; 9:18-19].

Again, you do realize that this was near the beginning of His ministry, and that until the time of His resurrection, His true nature would not be made known to most, or else His mission would not be completed. As you can see, later on in the Gospel He did say to preach His name.

And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. [Act; 18:5].

And os by this very verse you contradict yourself, mkongwe. Touche. You do very well in defending Christianity, like I said. Need I say more?

And when they (Jews) opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his raiment and said unto them. Your blood be upon your own heads. I am clean from henceforth I will go (preaching) unto the Gentiles. [Acts; 18:6].

And now you turn back to Paul. Is Paul your favourite? You seem to come back to him. What is his relevance tou your point above?

<snip>

It can be said the religion of CHRISTIANS started in Rome, the cradle of Roman Catholic, the first and oldest world denomination of Christianity. It is taught throughout the world as Paul thanked God through Jesus Christ (pbuh), and contrary to many Christians belief, Paul testified to the Romans that Jesus Christ (pbuh) is not God

Now where did that come from? You made the quote below--which did not in any way say to the contrary. You do have a funny way of making points, mkongwe. You are so desperate to find an audience for your losing proposition, and in so doing just grab any verse you like. You do amuse me.

First, I (Paul) thank God through Jesus Christ for your all that your (Roman) Faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. [Romans; 1:8].

From the above background, it is crystal clear that Christianity is not the religion from God as it was neither preached nor mentioned by Jesus Christ (pbuh) who also never mentioned the Christians, among are hostile to Muslims. Because they forgot a good part of the Message of ISLAM through Jesus Christ (pbuh) as stated in the Qur'an

It seems, though, that it is the opposite: Uthman and his cohorts seem to be hostile to Christians. Why, Christians were practically at peace when the horde from the Middle East came rushing in towards Europe, not bringing in the Qur'an but the sword. It was through Charles Martel that this was finally stopped at Gaul (France), and later on the vestiges of Islam driven out by the unification of Castille and Aragon in Spain. So, you got it all backwards, mkongwe. Or shall we bring up how you threatened Constantinople countless times? Ah, mkongwe, you do have a lot to learn. So do not speak of peace, as you say below, when Islam has spread not by the Qur'an, but by the sword.

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the (Islamic) message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. [Qur'an; 5:14].

Let me state again: we Christians do not recognize the Qur'an, nor Islam, nor Mohammed, as much as neither the Jews nor the prophets recognize Islam. Islam loves to co-opt these and say it is their own, when they have merely copied two religions before it.

mkongwe

21-11-03, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Mkongwe, mkongwe. You were the one who brought up that quote in answer. Now that was something that amused me to no end. I don't even need to defend Christianity when you do it for me.

Interesting. Let us see then your verses.

Again, you do realize that this was near the beginning of His ministry, and that until the time of His resurrection, His true nature would not be made known to most, or else His mission would not be completed. As you can see, later on in the Gospel He did say to preach His name.

And os by this very verse you contradict yourself, mkongwe. Touche. You do very well in defending Christianity, like I said. Need I say more?

And now you turn back to Paul. Is Paul your favourite? You seem to come back to him. What is his relevance tou your point above?

<snip>

Now where did that come from? You made the quote below--which did not in any way say to the contrary. You do have a funny way of making points, mkongwe. You are so desperate to find an audience for your losing proposition, and in so doing just grab any verse you like. You do amuse me.

First, I (Paul) thank God through Jesus Christ for your all that your (Roman) Faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. [Romans; 1:8].

It seems, though, that it is the opposite: Uthman and his cohorts seem to be hostile to Christians. Why, Christians were practically at peace when the horde from the Middle East came rushing in towards Europe, not bringing in the Qur'an but the sword. It was through Charles Martel that this was finally stopped at Gaul (France), and later on the vestiges of Islam driven out by the unification of Castille and Aragon in Spain. So, you got it all backwards, mkongwe. Or shall we bring up how you threatened Constantinople countless times? Ah, mkongwe, you do have a lot to learn. So do not speak of peace, as you say below, when Islam has spread not by the Qur'an, but by the sword.

Let me state again: we Christians do not recognize the Qur'an, nor Islam, nor Mohammed, as much as neither the Jews nor the prophets recognize Islam. Islam loves to co-opt these and say it is their own, when they have merely copied two religions before it.

Do you have any scripture to proof for what you said?
Please lets the Bible speaks.

mkongwe

21-11-03, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
It seems, though, that it is the opposite: Uthman and his cohorts seem to be hostile to Christians. Why, Christians were practically at peace when the horde from the Middle East came rushing in towards Europe, not bringing in the Qur'an but the sword. It was through Charles Martel that this was finally stopped at Gaul (France), and later on the vestiges of Islam driven out by the unification of Castille and Aragon in Spain. So, you got it all backwards, mkongwe. Or shall we bring up how you threatened Constantinople countless times? Ah, mkongwe, you do have a lot to learn. So do not speak of peace, as you say below, when Islam has spread not by the Qur'an, but by the sword.

Prophet Jesus son of Mary(peace be upon him) says in Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword".

Do you have a Bible? Then, read Joshua 10:26-40 “As the LORD GOD of Israel commanded”

We thought that you will come back with the an answer for our question.
What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

sanwin25

21-11-03, 03:36 PM

How can the Bible speak of anything which is does not recognise (ie, Islam, Mohammed and the Quran) ?

mkongwe

21-11-03, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
[B]How can the Bible speak of anything which is does not recognise (ie, Islam, Mohammed and the Quran) ?

Are you sure? Before you ask any question, please read the Bible carefully.

sanwin25

21-11-03, 03:53 PM

I certainly did.

As did millions of others and none has ever found any reference to your religion.

The only people who say this are, wait for it, Muslims !

Bada bing !

mkongwe

21-11-03, 03:57 PM

[i]Originally posted by sanwin25 .I certainly did.

As did millions of others and none has ever found any reference to your religion.

The only people who say this are, wait for it, Muslims !

Bada bing !

If you certainly did, what is the name of the father according to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) in the Bible?

sanwin25

21-11-03, 04:54 PM

You tell me first, who authorized Uthman to make his version of the Quran and burn all the original copies ?

Milliardo Peacecraft

21-11-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Prophet Jesus son of Mary(peace be upon him) says in Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword".

Mkongwe, again context. You love to just quote the Bible off hand. You seem to read it without knowing what it teaches. Jesus here notes that He comes to be a stumbling block for sinners, and that indeed He will trouble sinners with His word. That is what He meant. In no way should that be construed as Jesus coming in to bring more conflict.

Do you have a Bible? Then, read Joshua 10:26-40 “As the LORD GOD of Israel commanded”

Why mkongwe, this is a great passage. It speaks of Joshua conquering the surrounding tribes hostile to them, the people of Israel. Does it seem familiar? In all seriousness, this only points to Israel as the nation God has chosen, and in so doing God has bestowed on Israel that authority to conquer the lands around her, as those lands belong to her. Certainly doesn't look like an excuse for Islam to go around conquering other lands, and with many Muslims not even liking Israel, this passage becomes even less appealing to you than to us. Again, mkongwe=owned. You really need to have better skills in reading and comprehension than just picking passages about.

We thought that you will come back with the an answer for our question.
What is the name of the Father according to Jesus in the Bible?

Mkongwe, I have challenged you in a post before: tell us then where in the Bible does Jesus say this? Come on, you keep asking this, and by now you should have posted the answer and not keep on asking. If you have the answer, then do amuse us, as you always do, and watch as we pick you up off the floor after you're done humiliating yourself with your random Bible quoting.

mkongwe

25-11-03, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[B][font=comic sans ms]Mkongwe, again context. You love to just quote the Bible off hand. You seem to read it without knowing what it teaches. Jesus here notes that He comes to be a stumbling block for sinners, and that indeed He will trouble sinners with His word. That is what He meant. In no way should that be construed as Jesus coming in to bring more conflict.

Again I'm asking you for an evidence from the Bible.

Mkongwe, I have challenged you in a post before: tell us then where in the Bible does Jesus say this? Come on, you keep asking this, and by now you should have posted the answer and not keep on asking. If you have the answer, then do amuse us, as you always do, and watch as we pick you up off the floor after you're done humiliating yourself with your random Bible quoting.

Do you mean that Jesus didn't tell the name of the Father in the Bible?

mkongwe

25-11-03, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by sanwin25
[B]You tell me first, who authorized Uthman to make his version of the Quran and burn all the original copies ?

Have you read the Qur'an before?

sanwin25

26-11-03, 06:07 AM

Yes.

Now answer the question.

And answer does not mean asking another question.

Try it.

Milliardo Peacecraft

26-11-03, 10:37 PM

Darn, mkongwe, I thought you'd have a good answer already. You still keep asking it and dodging my challenge: if you say Jesus said the name of God in the Bible, then I ask you to show what chapter and verse it is in. It's that simple, since by asking this to us you seem to know the answer. Don't be shy now, or are we just going to see you rattle off unrelated quotes that will only make you humiliate yourself?

sanwin25

27-11-03, 05:17 AM

Come on now mkongwe , I answered your question. Now you answer mine.

mkongwe

28-11-03, 09:56 AM

[i]Originally posted by sanwin25.Yes.

If Yes, you will get your answer in Qur'an 4:82

[i]And answer does not mean asking another question.

We learn from prophet Jesus ( peace be upon him).

Mark 11:28-29 They asked, “What right do you have to do this things? Who gave you this authority?” Jesus answered, “I have just one question to ask you. If you answer it, I will tell you where I got the right to do these things. “Who gave John the right to baptize? Was it God from heaven or merely some human being?”

mkongwe

28-11-03, 10:12 AM

[i]Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft. Darn, mkongwe, I thought you'd have a good answer already. You still keep asking it and dodging my challenge: if you say Jesus said the name of God in the Bible, then I ask you to show what chapter and verse it is in. It's that simple, since by asking this to us you seem to know the answer. Don't be shy now, or are we just going to see you rattle off unrelated quotes that will only make you humiliate yourself?

Jesus (peace be upon you) those people who call themselves Christians and pretend to follow you, they said that you didn’t give them the name of the Father, is it true?

Jesus replied in John 17:6-10 “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy world. Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the world which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

________________________________________________
Qur’an 5:82-83 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians” because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth: They pray: “Our Lord! We believe; write us down among the witnesses.

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-11-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
Jesus (peace be upon you) those people who call themselves Christians and pretend to follow you, they said that you didn’t give them the name of the Father, is it true?

Jesus replied in John 17:6-10 “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy world. Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the world which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

We find that Jesus does not mention the name per se in this passage, nor even before that; however, the inference to this passage is the name I AM later in John 8. Strangely enough, it is also there that Jesus identifies Himself as also God by inferring to Himself as the I AM. Again, just like Teabag, you lose mkongwe. So thank you again--the record now stands as 0-2. Islam: 0 Christianity: 2. How does it feel to be on the losing side?

Milliardo Peacecraft

28-11-03, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by mkongwe
If Yes, you will get your answer in Qur'an 4:82

Again, we do not subscribe to the Qur'an, so this is not even valid.

We learn from prophet Jesus ( peace be upon him).

Mark 11:28-29 They asked, “What right do you have to do this things? Who gave you this authority?” Jesus answered, “I have just one question to ask you. If you answer it, I will tell you where I got the right to do these things. “Who gave John the right to baptize? Was it God from heaven or merely some human being?”

If you're using this as a defense for you, then it is a very poor one, for it totally invalidates Islam. Mkongwe, do you even understand the Bible? You're losing badly, as I keep repeating. You keep quoting passages that totally contradicts Islam, which must be humiliating to you right now.

sanwin25

28-11-03, 04:05 PM

004.082
YUSUFALI: Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
SHAKIR: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Was that the best you could do ? Nowhere do I see Uthmans name mentioned, nowhere do I see details about how the 6 other dialects that Allah CHOOSE TO REVEAL the Quran should be destroyed, nowhere do I see anything saying that Uthman should burn all the original documents.

Sorry, you lose once again.

mkongwe

29-11-03, 03:37 PM

[i]Originally posted by sanwin25 .004.082
YUSUFALI: Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
SHAKIR: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Was that the best you could do ? Nowhere do I see Uthmans name mentioned, nowhere do I see details about how the 6 other dialects that Allah CHOOSE TO REVEAL the Quran should be destroyed, nowhere do I see anything saying that Uthman should burn all the original documents.

Sorry, you lose once again.

Man as a creature is fallible. For this reason anything which is produced by him will naturally have faults. With the Qur'an, such a notion cannot even be considered as it is from the one who is
Infallible. In fact Allah clarifies this matter beautifully when he says:

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy”.
Surah An-Nisa 4:82)

There is no other religious scripture on earth which is orally preserved in its original language by so many and over such a period of time, without having been tampered somewhere along the line. The Bible is a prime example of this. Many Christians believe that English is the divine language of the Bible.
However Jesus (as) spoke Aramaic. From Aramaic, his life-story was translated into Hebrew. From Hebrew it was translated into Greek.
From Greek to Latin, and then finally from Latin to English! There
has not been a single vicar, priest or layman in recorded history who has even memorized the Bible in English, let alone the Aramaic! As Muslims we believe the Qur'an can only be in the language it was revealed in, i.e. Arabic. Anything else is a translation and not the divine words of the Creator. A true test of this divine preservation would be to burn all the books and manuscripts in existence, to see which can return as it was. The Qur'an would be the only book which would return in its original form, letter for letter, word for word.

______________________________________________

Jesus says in John 16:13 “For he will not speak on his own authority”
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 "In church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue".