Thursday, October 29, 2009

Muslims Assault Reporter outside Detroit Mosque

Hmmmm. Now where have I seen Muslims in Michigan get violent towards someone with a camera?

69 comments:

Irenaeus of New York said...

http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/somalia/11061/

Semper Paratus said...

There you have it, Osama...Not the Black Panthers, not rioters [and not Latino's, Jews, women or Freemasons], just Muhammad's finest doing what they do best. You must be so proud.

(P.S. Osama, while I have your attention, I wanted to ask: Do you know that Islam is the fastest shrinking religion in the world? Don't believe me? Just e-mail me. I'd love to tell you why. My proof is irrefutable...well, at least I don't think it can be refuted by any Muslim and I would love to see you try.)

Simon said...

wow im not surprized. this kind of thing happens all the time. well thats the prob IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. i just have to say to the people who dont knw the real Islam is to open ur eyes and c wut it is all about. i was just thinking if hlf of the muslim turn away from islam wud the other hlf kill them?

aussie christian said...

I may be way off the mark here (please inform me if i have got this wrong).

Islam seems to take hold in lower economic areas, lower education areas, higher crime rate areas, areas were people feel "marginalised".

I noted in some earlier posts the islamic terror group specifically targeted prisons with high proportion of ethnic minorities and people with little or no education to form their "training camps" around the US. If I am correct here then Islam can only increase by finding people who will just swallow anything they are told.

It seems to me (perhaps overly optimisticly) education and worthwhile employment, plus giving "minorities" a sence of being needed and wanted can go a long way to minimising the toehold "Evil Islam" can get in our countries.

As I have never traveled to the US, this is simply my opinion of what I have seen. If I am incorrect on this subject, can some US bloggers please inform us of the reason that this is how it appears.

The Fat Man said...

Nothin to look at her folks just move along and get back to MTV, Dancin with the stars, or american Idol

Ed said...

These Muslims don't want to be seen, so they destroy the camera. Hmmm, now what else hates the light?

Ed said...

aussie christian, the thing is complex, so feeling marginalized is one factor. But many studies have shown, I gather, that often the radical jihadists are the best educated and the wealthiest Muslims. Remember the doctors' plot in the UK. Think of bin Laden. Think of those who carried out 9/11. Again and again, we find cases of Muslims who have been given a good education in middle class or wealthy homes, but who become violent totalitarian jihadists.

The thing to remember is that while poverty and marginalization may play some role -- and in prison, one must apparently join groups to survive, thus many become Muslims -- Islam does not do what it does, merely as a reaction to us, or because Islam has been victimized in this way or that. On the contrary, Islam has its own motivations, its own plans, its own doctrine and history, and it does what it does regardless of what the West does. For almost 400 years before the Crusades, Islamic jihad was busy conquering Christian lands, and before the first Crusade, Islam had conquered with the sword more than one-third of the Christian world and made it Islamic. Long before we "victimized" them, they were on the warpath against us, following the theology and example of their prime exemplar, warlord Muhammad. The Christian Crusaders were a defensive reaction to nearly four centuries of Islamic assault. And the Crusaders, to do some of the things they did, had to go against the words Jesus is reported in the Bible to have said. Whereas the Muslim jihadists can find plenty in Muhammad's actions and words to support some of the most atrocious and totalitarian jihadist actions.

The West is not responsible for what Islam does. Thinking the West is responsible for everything is just another form of cultural chauvinism.

aussie christian said...

to Ed,

Thanks for the insight there. So it seems that Islam is attractive to those already violent of mind, regardless of education.

Well I suppose it is a natural thing for people who love God to gravitate to Christ, and those who love the things of Satan gravitate to islam.

So we see the battle lines being drawn up. Satan will surround all of God's people, thinking they are going to win, but not seeing that Jesus will come and rent them in two just as the curtain in the holy of holies was rent. then all knee's will bend to the true God.

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

Ed said:
Long before we "victimized" them, they were on the warpath against us, following the theology and example of their prime exemplar, warlord Muhammad. The Christian Crusaders were a defensive reaction to nearly four centuries of Islamic assault. And the Crusaders, to do some of the things they did, had to go against the words Jesus is reported in the Bible to have said.

YES! FINALLY, someone who knows their history. How is it that the whole world does not remember that it was the armies of Islam that were the conquerors and invaders of other civilizations? They laid waste to the last bastion of Christianity in the East, and it was the Christian Church in the West that attempted to push the Muslims back via the Crusades. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, the Muslims ultimately prevailed and the Crusades were lost. How is it now that Muslims complain about Crusades and how horrible Christians supposedly are treating them when they won that war and went on their way oppressing the Jews and remaining Christian inhabitants of the Holy Land unchallenged for coming up on a thousand years now? HMM???

Idiot liberal historical revisionists who came upon a Middle Eastern civilization that time left behind in the 1800s told them so, that's how. Enlightenment romanceers and explorers deluded with some Crusade fantasy swept into a technologically backward Palestine to spread the stories of the "glorious" Crusades and how much damage was done to the Islamic enemy. Now what a fine mess we have!

All right...calming down now. :)

GreekAsianPanda said...

...The religion of peace...

IslamSINS said...

"If I am correct here then Islam can only increase by finding people who will just swallow anything they are told."

Ummmmm, yes, that would be correct. If they're willing to swallow "Allah's" complete failure as a mathmetician, astronomer, biologist, embryologist, and make allowances for his advanced Alzheimer's, the rest of Islam's garbage is easy-peasy.

Yes, Aussie Christian, the largest pool of U.S. converts to Islam do come from our prisons. Islam is basically a big gang of thugs, so it requires no change in a life of any criminal, other than learning to give salutations and blessings on their gang leader, Muhammad the foul liar. Most defect from Islam withing 3-5 years.

The behavior of the Muslims in this video must make David, Nabeel, and Mary Jo shudder with horror at what might have become of them during the Muslim-American festival last July.

One would think that since Islam wants the entire planet subdued for this "allah" lout, they'd have a more open society. Islam loves the dark because its deeds are dark. It is of its father, Satan, a liar and the father of lies.

As a Christian, I know that we win. But oh, the interim until Christ's return is troubling. Will Islam be the beast of Revelation? It's beginning to appear that way.

We must be about our Father's business; the night is coming when no man can work. Muhammad has dragged enough souls to an eternity in hell. In light of that, it is a sin to remain silent about this war machine that destroys everything it touches.

The Fat Man said...

I know Osama Abulah is banned however I just noticed something. I typed in www.answering-islam.com not .org and Osama has a DNS redirect on .com to go to his site. How devious is that.

Simon said...

i wonder if Islam has any dirt on the christians. videos etc. well i knw christianity also has its own probs for example catholic bishops and child mulestor, child poronography, gay bishops etc. catholics need to come to christ and believe and im tired of their retucles and their props and there long robes. they need to prop their hearts.

mkvine said...

Dr. Wood, have those muslims from Dearborn, Michigan been brought to justice yet? I think something should be done because I think they will continue to harrass non-Muslims at the Arab Festival.

Brianman said...

How can one believe in the word of PAUL when he wanted people to follow his gospel and not John, Peter and James'?

I cannot believe in PAUL. There is too much evidence and I have too much common sense not to believe in him.

I am not a muslim by the way...I am on the way of becoming a Muslim.

Finding out about Paul has been a huge dissapointmen for me. But it is the truth.

Fernando said...

Hi t_a_s... you saide: «How can one believe in the word of PAUL when he wanted people to follow his gospel and not John, Peter and James'?

I cannot believe in PAUL. There is too much evidence and I have too much common sense not to believe in him.

I am not a muslim by the way...I am on the way of becoming a Muslim.

Finding out about Paul has been a huge dissapointmen for me. But it is the truth»
...

woulde you now say something withe any kind off knowledge? or woulde you wantt to comment anything on this present topic?

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

Brianman, I answered your previous questions on my blog. I can answer your other questions too.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brianman,

You do realise if you are a muslim you have to believe in the Gospel writing and then you cannot be a muslim after, which is why you can never be a true muslim even though you convert to Islam:

"Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray" (Sura 4:136)

As to your rejection of Paul, what exactly is it in Paul that puts you off? Paul utilized the Gospels we have in written form in their oral form. Paul was co-working with Peter the apostle and was accepted by the disciples of Peter and John.

That answers your argument that Paul followed a different gospel from Peter, Matthew John and the other apostles.

aussie christian said...

With everything going on, one brave politition here in Australia tried to speak out on the dangers of allowing an increase in the immigration to this country by Muslims. The jist of his comments were that, we dont need a concentration of any ethnic, political or religeous people, especially when they isolate themselves from the rest of society.

Needless to say he has been screamed down by all sides of politics both state and federal, and it looks like he may loose his preselection at the next election.

I see the main problem in Australia is that we have less than 1 million Muslims and as they are grosly outnumbered they are using the old ploy of, Islam means peace, and were just wanting to live peacefully with everyone.

Australia's grand Imam sided with osama bin laden (old-slimy bin liner) Blamed everyone for 9/11 and praised the Bali bombers. But our pollies still think these people are kind and caring.

Lets see if the 4 "Good wonderful Muslim" men on trial atm for planning a "operational martyrdem" on and army barracks will change their minds.

fabian said...

Dear Simon,

I am a Catholic Christian and We Believe In Lord Jesus Christ as much as you Do.

Catholic Priests, Nuns, Monks, bishops and Our Pope are just Humans. Just Like any One of Us.

When I see all kind of sill human nature among my people (Catholic community) I dont runaway from my Catholic Church to attend the Bible Church. Being a Catholic and bring changes in my people is a GOD will. Because even Bible Churches are not perfect as I see many of your bible Christians converting to Islam.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Brian man

How’s it going?I hope you are well

You said,

How can one believe in the word of PAUL when he wanted people to follow his gospel and not John, Peter and James'?

I say:

You need to understand that Paul claimed to preach the exact same gospel as John, Peter and James and that those men agreed with him. (Galatians 2:6-1o, Acts chapter 15, 2nd peter 3:15)


I suggest you read the new testament it’s not a long book. Make a note of any places where you believe what Paul said conflicts with what Jesus or the twelve said. Bring those up here and we can discuss them. I think you will find there are no such conflicts.

To get you started here is Paul’s summery of the Gospel

Quote:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
(1 Corinthians 15:1-11)



Notice Paul explicitly says that all the disciples preach the same thing.

This passage is from a letter written about twenty years after the events mentioned to a church that the other disciples often visited .


You said:
Finding out about Paul has been a huge dissapointmen for me. But it is the truth.


I say:


According to who? Not the disciples themselves. Who is in a beter position to know than them?

Peace

Brianman said...

Well no, that is not true...in his letters, he complains about people/churches rejecting Pauls own words for the other gospel...the gospel that tells people to keep the commandments of the O.T, the gospel that tells us to circumsise....this is the gospel that the Qur'an is referring to. Muslims don't reject the modern day bible as a whole as it is today.
“ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

"which was REVEALED to you" That which is revealed is not that which are the words in the Bibles today.

"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray" (Sura 4:136)

SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER
The 'Allah' of the Muslims is referring to the original teachings of Jesus that is written down. The original teachings are in the bible as it exists today, however, only traces of it. Muslims believe in the scripture that was sent (the words that were intended for the book), not the edits by man.
To believe in the scripture in this context can ALSO mean...to acknowledge that the gospel (as Paul called Johns, Peters and James') these words are from God. You have to believe in the idea that the gospel contains teachings of God's and no other Gods.

No Muslim can deny the original teachings within the book. No muslim is permitted to say that the gospels of today is totally invalid, this is simply not the case.

He was accepted by John and Peter and James because HE LIED to them, 'proving' that he was not the one who tried to teach people that it is ok to forget about the commandments.

"Paul utilized the Gospels we have in written form in their oral form. Paul was co-working with Peter the apostle and was accepted by the disciples of Peter and John."


You have not answered anything, I'm not going to nod my head and say yes to this lol...I have an unconditional offer for a top 4 medical school in the UK...just because I am 18, I still analyse and come to logical conclusions.

I genuinely don't understand how you can accept Paul as your apostle.

I was shocked to find out that the second letter of Peter was universally rejected by all scholars, and there is a great dispute over the first letter too.

It doesn't seem to make any difference to me that Paul followed Peter, the fact is...he chose his own gospel and his own teachings rather than Jesus'..He HAD to learn from them about the actual Jesus or else how 'reputable' can his book be?! If it conflicts with the actual sayings of the actual disciples, the people who were in power at the time?

Peter left Paul, James left Paul...THE ONLY PERSON THAT REMAINED WITH PAUL WAS LUKE!

The devil appears like that of a bright white light...Paul saw a white bright light..draw your own conclusion.
Oh hang on, lets go back a second...He tells us that people around him heard the voice but didn't see the light...but in another N.T account, he says that the people around him saw the light but didn't hear the voice? I'm sorry..a contradiction of the story of the witnesses, as well as the fact that there is no evidence that the witnesses were actually...witnesses to the event, as well as the idea that we are supposed to put our trust in a mans own tongue....it's just far too weak for me to base my faith on.

All of the writers of the Gospels were closely affiliated with Paul. They were disciples of Paul..they believed in preaching Pauls gospel...thus sharing his beliefs....they must have tried to make biblical documents make Jesus seem more "LORD GOD"-like.

Brianman said...

I have not even heard a thing about Mithray yet..I'm going to research it now, t_a_s told me that it is a killer of Pauline Christianity. All i know about Mithray is that Tertullian blamed the demons for recognising FUTURE events of Jesus' life and incorporating it into Mithay worship before these pariticular events happened in real life.
I'm intrigued, i want to find out what they are.

I'm sorry, I just cannot accept Paul after the words HE has spoken in the letters.

I even think James wanted him killed/thrown into jail or something. Wow.

Why do Christians eat meat that hasn't had blood drained out from it? Why are they not circumsized? What happened to the sabbath every saturday? Why is there gay-freedom now? They all break the rules that Jesus came to fulfill for us, so that they can be complete for us to put into practice. Paul removed this and Jesus as well as the O.T warned us all of these people.

I even think that Apollos is Peter...although I am not too sure.

What do Christians say about mithray? Be honest, which parts of Mithray cult came before Christianity...Tertullian admitted to the whole "meal" thing.

Thank you fellow believers in God.

IslamSINS said...

Brianman, your comment about Paul shows that you're well on your way to becoming a slave of "Allah". You make an accusation without giving a single proof (that's Muslim 101), so, I'd love to hear a single conflict between any of Paul's teachings and what Christ taught His apostles. If you found about about Paul from the Muslims, they detest Paul's amplification of Christ's Deity. Why are you hugely disppointed? Was Paul important to you?

Paul was directly confronted by the Lord on the way to Damascus; Muhammad was confronted by a demon, maybe Satan himself, in a dark, damp cave in Hira. Islam is a message of hate, from a messenger hate, who raped his baby wife, Aisha when she was still playing with her dolls at the age of eight (in lunar months).

You are the perfect target for Muslims; you're ignorant about Islam/Muhammad and you're ignorant about Christ. Know, that once you're in Islam's trap, you'll risk death for apostasy. One day, when you're mature, you may want to do just that, but Islam imposes a death penalty on apostates. No thinking is allowed in Islam.

Abandon sanity, all you who enter Islam's gateway to perdition.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Brian:

you said:


the gospel that tells people to keep the commandments of the O.T, the gospel that tells us to circumsise....this is the gospel that the Qur'an is referring to.

I said:

Paul did not tell people not to keep the commandments and he personally circumsized folks. What he taught against was the idea that such things could save you.

The “gospel” you mention was universally rejected by the apostles of Jesus. (Acts, chapter 15) and it was rejected by Jesus himself (Luke 8:12, Luke 23:40-43, John, 3;15-16, John 6:40 etc etc etc). It’s even rejected by Yahweh in the first person ( Ex 34:5-8, etc etc)

By what authority do you reject the teaching of God in these matters and accept the testimony of man?


You say:

I was shocked to find out that the second letter of Peter was universally rejected by all scholars,

I say:

This statement is simply incorrect. Check this out

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_kruger.pdf

Very few things are universally rejected by all scholars the only thing I can think of right now is the Muslim idea that Jesus did not die on the cross.

You said:


It doesn't seem to make any difference to me that Paul followed Peter, the fact is...he chose his own gospel and his own teachings rather than Jesus'



You through terms around like “Fact” and “Truth” and “universally rejected” around a lot. Such bravado demands evidence.

Do you have any contemporary evidence to back up your claims? Any first centaury evidence at all? If you do present it

Or is your whole case built apron second hand information written hundreds of years after the events in question?

peace

Fernando said...

Dear brother Simon... it's nott the first time I see somme harsh cooments abott catholics arounde here... do you really mean whate you're saying? well... maybee... butt do you really think you're doing any good to Christianity in its dialogue withe muslims by talking likke thate?

Fernando said...

Hi t_a_s... still trying to make beliebe youre Brianman... do you know whate is an IP?... eben the way youre sentences are built are the same in your two "personae"... two sad... nevertheless you (t_a_s & Brianman) are so far away from the truth aboutt everything youre posting thate you show thate you're notte eben trying to bee coherent withe youre own thoughts... ah, by the way, all your arguments are being taken from 2 islamic sites attacking Chriatianity... strange to see you are going to try to learn anything from Christianity from sites from a realigion thate, from it's start, had to creatte false statements from Christianity to defend the false claimes from a false prophet...

may God help you in your search for the true...

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

Brianman, you have no excuse for your ignorance. When I was 18, I knew more about Islam than you do about Christianity. Now you are making very incorrect and foolish statements about the New Testament, and if you are an honest seeker of truth (as you claim to be), then you will examine Christian history with fairness.

Brianman said:
the gospel that tells us to circumsise....this is the gospel that the Qur'an is referring to.

No, you cannot say this, because you do not know what the Qu'ran is referring to--no one does. The Qu'ran does not specify what 'other' gospel Muhummad is talking about. Furthermore, you are doubly wrong in calling the dispute over circumcision a dispute over "gospels." Here is where your ignorance betrays you: the dispute between Paul and Peter was about whether or not people should become circumsized as Jews before they could become believers in Jesus Christ (because "salvation is from the Jews"--Jesus' own words, John 4:22). Paul corrected this belief by saying that Gentiles do not need to be circumcized in the body to be Christians, because through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Gentiles are already accepted and circumcized in their hearts.

Your attempt to drive a wedge between the Apostles is ineffective and rather old. You don't think that people have tried this before? They have tried and have been refuted, because the scholarship just does not support this idea.

Paul, after becoming a believer, spent personal time with Peter and James (the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself) TWICE for the express purpose of making sure that the message of Jesus that they all preached was coherent, unified, and the same.

The original teachings are in the bible as it exists today, however, only traces of it.

There is a name to this kind of thinking called cherrypicking. Prove it. Otherwise, you are simply parroting hearsay.

All of the writers of the Gospels were closely affiliated with Paul. They were disciples of Paul..they believed in preaching Pauls gospel...thus sharing his beliefs....they must have tried to make biblical documents make Jesus seem more "LORD GOD"-like.

Please, Brianman, you are embarrassing yourself. Matthew was not affiliated with Paul and neither was John the Apostle. Your biggest problem is that Paul was a devout Jew of high religious significance who encountered the Lord Jesus while trying to persecute Christians. He would not then become a believer in the name of the very person he was persecuting unless he really had a revelation from the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

You are young and impressionable, to which I give mercy. But you are already showing a dishonesty toward matters of faith that will lead you further into darkness, which is an attitude that Christians must resist. You would not dare show such dishonesty in the medical profession, so do your soul a favor and be honest in your pursuit of spiritual truth as well. God, in any religions, demands it from you.

Brianman said...

Oh come on. Why the hostility because I reject Paul? You are showing hostility?


Why is everyone coming across disrespectful and patronising? This is not how I expected Christians to act. It is such a shame.

Jesus taught me:
“I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do” (v.12)

“If you love me, you will obey my commandments.” (v.15)
Paul says that you don't need to stick to the commandments.


Paul LIED his way to be accepted by Peter and James.
James wanted Paul to PROVE that he didn't give the laws that he gave in his letters, by eating from the sacrificed animal..and HE ATE IT! HE LIED, yet the truth was in Paul's letters. Just clarify this point for me..I am correct aren't I? Answer this please. Am I correct? Paul did lie. In his letters he said one thing and to James, he said another. Remember...Paul said something like: I will become all things to all men, so that I may win them"
Shabir Ally in a debate said that Paul did lie.

He got close to the disciples' church because of a lie. He therefore broke a commandment.

He called galatians foolish for accepting the other gospel (the gospel that John, Peter and James preached).

I don't like the fact that he is boastful especially in ehshperians or something like that. God hates boastfulness.

I am shocked that Paul asked for money for preaching his gospel to people?! I am completely shocked at that.

James called for Paul's death and said that no one can be saved without obeying the commandments.
I'm sorry, Noah, Moses, Jesus etc. all told me to obey the commandments. I believe in Jesus, I love Jesus, I will obey the commandments. No man can get in the way of my love for Jesus. Not Paul.

Jesus warned of the ravening wolves. Jesus warned of the Pharisees and edomites. Paul was both. (yes he was from the tribe of Benjamin and yes they are ravening wolves) “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-20).

Paul taught that people shouldn't keep the commandments. They should just have faith? Am I wrong? Don't elaborate..just answer the question..please.
"I come in my fathers name and you receive me not,if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive". Paul came in his own name and gave his own laws. Why not just believe Jesus Christ your savior and his own words? Just like JESUS ordained for you, not human philosophy. By following Paul, I wont totally be following Jesus/be following Jesus less. You must agree with me here, it is a fact. Circumcision included.


Someone (who was actually much more respectful than the others) said: Here is where your ignorance betrays you: the dispute between Paul and Peter was about whether or not people should become circumsized as Jews before they could become believers in Jesus Christ (because "salvation is from the Jews"--Jesus' own words, John 4:22). Paul corrected this belief by saying that Gentiles do not need to be circumcized in the body to be Christians, because through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Gentiles are already accepted and circumcized in their hearts.

You are talking about Acts 15 here, I am talking well before that, BEFORE Paul came to Jerusalem to see James (before the whole sacrifice thing).
are you aware of what time I am talking about now? It's where Paul was calling Gallatians foolish remember?

Please get back to me.
Thanks.
Please, we both Love God. For the love of God please don't act patronising/disrespectful.

Brianman said...

Oh come on. Why the hostility because I reject Paul? You are showing hostility?


Why is everyone coming across disrespectful and patronising? This is not how I expected Christians to act. It is such a shame. 

Jesus taught me:
“I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do” (v.12)

“If you love me, you will obey my commandments.” (v.15)
Paul says that you don't need to stick to the commandments. 


Paul LIED his way to be accepted by Peter and James. 
James wanted Paul to PROVE that he didn't give the laws that he gave in his letters, by eating from the sacrificed animal..and HE ATE IT! HE LIED, yet the truth was in Paul's letters. Just clarify this point for me..I am correct aren't I? Answer this please. Am I correct? Paul did lie. In his letters he said one thing and to James, he said another. Remember...Paul said something like: I will become all things to all men, so that I may win them"
Shabir Ally in a debate said that Paul did lie.

He got close to the disciples' church because of a lie. He therefore broke a commandment. 

He called galatians foolish for accepting the other gospel (the gospel that John, Peter and James preached). 

I don't like the fact that he is boastful especially in ehshperians or something like that. God hates boastfulness. 

I am shocked that Paul asked for money for preaching his gospel to people?! I am completely shocked at that. 

James called for Paul's death and said that no one can be saved without obeying the commandments. 
I'm sorry, Noah, Moses, Jesus etc. all told me to obey the commandments. I believe in Jesus, I love Jesus, I will obey the commandments. No man can get in the way of my love for Jesus. Not Paul. 

Jesus warned of the ravening wolves. Jesus warned of the Pharisees and edomites. Paul was both. (yes he was from the tribe of Benjamin and yes they are ravening wolves) “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-20).

Paul taught that people shouldn't keep the commandments. They should just have faith? Am I wrong? Don't elaborate..just answer the question..please. 
"I come in my fathers name and you receive me not,if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive". Paul came in his own name and gave his own laws. Why not just believe Jesus Christ your savior and his own words? Just like JESUS ordained for you, not human philosophy. By following Paul, I wont totally be following Jesus/be following Jesus less. You must agree with me here, it is a fact. Circumcision included.


Someone (who was actually much more respectful than the others) said: Here is where your ignorance betrays you: the dispute between Paul and Peter was about whether or not people should become circumsized as Jews before they could become believers in Jesus Christ (because "salvation is from the Jews"--Jesus' own words, John 4:22). Paul corrected this belief by saying that Gentiles do not need to be circumcized in the body to be Christians, because through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Gentiles are already accepted and circumcized in their hearts.

You are talking about Acts 15 here, I am talking well before that, BEFORE Paul came to Jerusalem to see James (before the whole sacrifice thing). 
are you aware of what time I am talking about now? It's where Paul was calling Gallatians foolish remember? 

Please get back to me. 
Thanks. 
Please, we both Love God. For the love of God please don't act patronising/disrespectful.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brian Man wrote:

Well no, that is not true...in his letters, he complains about people/churches rejecting Pauls own words for the other gospel...the gospel that tells people to keep the commandments of the O.T, the gospel that tells us to circumsise....this is the gospel that the Qur'an is referring to. Muslims don't reject the modern day bible as a whole as it is today.

Elijah replies:

Can you provide the evidence that these Mosaic-Christian teachers were in the same band as James, Peter and John? Your claim here, becomes gueswork! In fact if you read Acts 15 which describes the council at Jerusalem you will find that the Judaizers are a separate faction from Paul, James, Peter and John.

Brianman wrote

“ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

"which was REVEALED to you" That which is revealed is not that which are the words in the Bibles today.

Elijah replies:

Again you are reading your own view into the passage. Can you provide evidence from the Qur’an that this refers to the original Gospel and not the Gospel in Muhammad’s time. In fact the author of the Qur’an is addressing Muslims and Christians in Muhammad’s time. Hence this is clear indication or more correct evidence that the author of the Qur’an considered the Gospel intact in Muhammad’s time, whereas there is no indication that the Gospel in Muhammad’s time was corrupt!

Brianman wrote:

"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray" (Sura 4:136)

SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER
The 'Allah' of the Muslims is referring to the original teachings of Jesus that is written down. The original teachings are in the bible as it exists today, however, only traces of it. Muslims believe in the scripture that was sent (the words that were intended for the book), not the edits by man.

Elijah replies:

Again Brian you brought up a lot of assumptions, and I still need to ask you for a lot of evidence. Again how do you prove from the Qur’an that this refers only to some particular parts of the Injeel and not the whole of it? You see the burden off proof is on you, and you need to bring me the evidence from the Qur’an.
The fact that the Qur’an is so specifically clear about the accuracy of the Gospel in Muhammad’s time proves you wrong. If you can provide evidence from the Qur’an that the Gospel was corrupted, then the Qur’an contradicts itself. If you can prove from history that the Gospel was corrupted, then the Qur’an is historically inaccurate; which ever way you want it, you will shoot yourself in the foot.
Also tell how do you differentiate in the Gospels what is corrupt and what is not? This becomes typical cherry picking, and when Muslims resort to this practice every point they bring up proves inconsistence in terms of their own approach and methodology.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brian man wrote:

To believe in the scripture in this context can ALSO mean...to acknowledge that the gospel (as Paul called Johns, Peters and James') these words are from God. You have to believe in the idea that the gospel contains teachings of God's and no other Gods.

Elijah replies:

Brian, we have the Gospel of John and we have the Gospel of Peter (which is the Gospel of Mark), are you saying that these Gospels contradict the teaching of Paul?
And if these Gospels are from John and Peter are they not sufficient evidence (even if we exclude Paul) to confirm that Islam is wrong

Brianman wrote:

No Muslim can deny the original teachings within the book. No muslim is permitted to say that the gospels of today is totally invalid, this is simply not the case.

Elijah replies:

Again you misrepresenting the Qur’an teaching, you are not even alowed to question the Gospel in its entirety. Can you show me were the Qur’an says tha the Gospel is not totally valid?
You see you are reading typical modern muslim bogus into the text (sorry for the harsh wording), neither the author of the Qur’an nor Muhammad held to your view.

Brianman wrote:

He was accepted by John and Peter and James because HE LIED to them, 'proving' that he was not the one who tried to teach people that it is ok to forget about the commandments.

Elijah replies:

Again evidence, prove to me from original sources that Paul lied to the apostles.
And again Paul did not reject the Law (Romans 7: 12), he stated that the Law could not save, in that sense it was not perfect. Furthermore, Paul in agreement with the apostles agreed that the Law was meant for the Jew to follow not the Gentile (Acts 15 and Galatians 2).

Brianman wrote:

"Paul utilized the Gospels we have in written form in their oral form. Paul was co-working with Peter the apostle and was accepted by the disciples of Peter and John."


You have not answered anything, I'm not going to nod my head and say yes to this lol...I have an unconditional offer for a top 4 medical school in the UK...just because I am 18, I still analyse and come to logical conclusions.

Elijah replies:

I think I have answered you effectively, yet because you have not done any proper research and fail to get into any heavier discusion you draw back. However, if you are an expert in analyzing, you ought to be aware of that your conclusion here ought to be based upon proper study and they are not.

Brianman wrote:

I was shocked to find out that the second letter of Peter was universally rejected by all scholars, and there is a great dispute over the first letter too.

Elijah replies:

You have to define what you mean by universally rejected. There is not common consent among scholars that second Peter was not written by Peter. This view goes back to the third century. Christians in the third century were not in agreement whether Peter was the author, but the letter was consider by some as authoritative and others as accepted; it was not rejected.
As to rejection of First Peter, this is an opinion among liberal scholars who find First Peter as a source that jeapordizes their opinion, since first Peter includes church organisation. Scholars who hold to atheism or naturalism, have to theorise that the early Christians were completely primitive, uneducated, possessed no book, were unable to preserve their traditions and had no interest in retaining it. These conclusions are nevertheless unhistorical and would debunk the Qur’an as well. But within this theory they are forced to reject first Peter who writes about ecclesiastical organisation. This is also the reason why they reject the Pastorial Epistles of Paul, first and second Timothy and Titus.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brianman wrote:

It doesn't seem to make any difference to me that Paul followed Peter, the fact is...he chose his own gospel and his own teachings rather than Jesus'..He HAD to learn from them about the actual Jesus or else how 'reputable' can his book be?! If it conflicts with the actual sayings of the actual disciples, the people who were in power at the time?

Peter left Paul, James left Paul...THE ONLY PERSON THAT REMAINED WITH PAUL WAS LUKE!

Elijah replies:

But now you are not analyzing at all. In what sense was Paul’s message different from that of Jesus? Please elaborate on this.
Also can you provide the actual evidences that Peter left Paul and James left Paul; this is not what we learn from the disciples of Peter and John.

Brianman wrote:

The devil appears like that of a bright white light...Paul saw a white bright light..draw your own conclusion.

Elijah replies:

God and angels can also appear in glory; what makes you assume that Paul had an accounter with the devil?

Brianman wrote:

Oh hang on, lets go back a second...He tells us that people around him heard the voice but didn't see the light...but in another N.T account, he says that the people around him saw the light but didn't hear the voice? I'm sorry..a contradiction of the story of the witnesses, as well as the fact that there is no evidence that the witnesses were actually...witnesses to the event, as well as the idea that we are supposed to put our trust in a mans own tongue....it's just far too weak for me to base my faith on.

Elijah replies:

Interesting, if you cannot trust Paul’s testimony, how are you gona trust the Qur’an, since the entire Qur’an hangs on Muhammad’s testimony? Nobody actually witnessed Gabrial bring the revelation to Muhammad.
However, let me educate you on the Damascus road experience: Acts 9: 7 tells us that the men with Paul heard the sound (not the voice) but did not see anyone, while Acts 22: 9 records that they saw the light but not did understand the voice, in Greek it literary says: the ‘phonen’ (sound) of the one ‘lalouvtes’ (speaking). Hence 9: 7 records a sound they heard, while 22: 9 records the voice they did not hear. A similar thing occurs in John 12: 27-29 when Jesus hears the Father’s voice while the crowd only hears a sound of thunder.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brianman wrote:

All of the writers of the Gospels were closely affiliated with Paul. They were disciples of Paul..they believed in preaching Pauls gospel...thus sharing his beliefs....they must have tried to make biblical documents make Jesus seem more "LORD GOD"-like.

Elijah replies:

Again I need the evidence bro. Mark was written probably 50-55 AD if we consider the sources used by Eusebius, that is pretty early. However, read Paul and you will find that Paul is dependent upon this same Gospel source. In fact the Gospel source found in the four gospels existed prior to Paul’s writings.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Brian,

You said:

Oh come on. Why the hostility because I reject Paul? You are showing hostility?

I say:

I have not seen any hostility here only requests that you back up your claims with evidence. So far you have provided none.
To do so would be the courteous thing.

I for one could care less if you reject Paul. I don’t follow Paul.

But you are not rejecting Paul here you are rejecting the gospel and are instead are embracing a false gospel based on your own merit.

When you do so you spurn the sacrifice of Jesus (Hebrews 10:29) and such a thing is very serious because to reject Jesus is to reject the father who sent him (John 12:24).

Nothing could be more hostile on our part than to not challenge you to honestly look at the evidence before you do such a thing.

For example just think about the circular reasoning you are using here.

You say you reject the gospels because you believe they come after Paul yet you reject Paul’s teaching based on a second hand information from folks many decades after him.



You say:


Am I correct? Paul did lie. In his letters he said one thing and to James, he said another.


I say:

No you are not correct. Paul did not say anything different in his letters than he said to James. If you disagree just present your evidence here so we can look at it.

You say;

James called for Paul's death and said that no one can be saved without obeying the commandments.

I say:

Reference please, Where are you getting this stuff??


Peace

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

Brianman, I have read over others' comments and find no hostility in them toward you. In my country (US), you are still an immature youth, and it is proper for adults to address your statements as to a youth, because that is what you are. Perhaps you should show more respect for your elders, who tower over you in Bible knowledge. In fact, I see that everyone has shown you ample grace, given that the things you say are utterly incorrect.

You said:
Jesus taught me:
“I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do” (v.12) “If you love me, you will obey my commandments.” (v.15)


Interesting. You claim that Jesus taught you something: first to believe in Jesus and then to obey HIS commandments. Why, it sounds like Jesus is God here, doesn't it?

Paul says that you don't need to stick to the commandments.

Incorrect. If you are insinuating that Paul is teaching disobedience, then you are really out of bounds. Paul taught that following the Law cannot bring salvation. It is the grace of God through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that saves a person from hell to eternal life. This is perfectly consistent with Jesus' encounter with the rich young man who thought he was in God's favor by following the Law. Jesus rebuked his thinking and the man went away sad. I daresay that you might be one such young man as the one in the Bible.

Shabir Ally in a debate said that Paul did lie.

Oh, so you would take Shabir Ally's word, but not Christians speaking about their own scriptures? Dishonesty.

Quick summary of all your complaints:
Paul ate meat, another gospel, boastful, money...etc, etc.

You are simply too ignorant about these details in the Bible to speak about it. Read the New Testament yourself instead of parroting someone else's ignorance and adding your own to boot. Again, I question your honesty at this point.

Paul taught that people shouldn't keep the commandments. They should just have faith? Am I wrong?

I answered this question above. You must realize that "faith" is not an easy thing to have. There is no such thing as "just have faith." Because every man is sinful and wicked, without God's grace no one is able to have faith in Jesus. No one can keep the commandments of God without the forgiveness and cleansing of sins FIRST.

This is how Christianity differs from every other religion in the world. Every religion says "try harder" and "do better" and just follow the rules so then God will find you worthy of His love and salvation. Christianity says our hearts are dead to God and we would never follow Him because humans love darkness rather than light. Therefore, Jesus is the Way the Truth, and the Life--faith in Jesus raises us out of our spiritual death so that we can obey God in newness of life. We are already loved and accepted because of what Jesus has done; that is why we obey. I hope you can see now how completely wrong your understanding of Christianity and the Bible are.

The pastor of my church likes to quote something like this: You are more sinful than you could ever hope to realize, but you are also loved more than you can imagine.

Fernando said...

Dear Brianman/t_a_s... so far you have saide a lott off (falsity) things without any support... whie are you building castles made off clouds? thate does nott make you any more respectefull than whate you are... its sad to say, I do belive, butt constating the truthe (your continuous false claims and sheer biblical ignorance) is neber an actt off hostilitty unless to those who live in an universe off lies... you cannot be "offended" by whate you see when someone places a mirror in front off you: whate you see reflected is whate you are...

and no, I do nott believe in the same God you (visibly) believe: I do nott believe in thate man made god named allah...

my prayers are always withe you and your family... you saide you were half polish... I habe many polish friends...

Brianman said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RFyEKtOpt4&feature=PlayList&p=D1EC9FC8A832F4E3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9


not just that...Paul was a boaster, he loved to boast, he had so much self-pride - this is all a fact, look it up yourself. He was a man full of boastfulness.

He came with a "different gospel"...His message. He preached something other than Jesus' teachings.

He asked for MONEY for preaching the gospel to people.

you have accepted a different gospel. a deviated gospel, after the one that the earliest church taught you.

They thought they were teaching true gospel.
Ebionites - prophet, St.Paul was a heretic.

Don't give me quotes from Peter's letters..I don't believe a single word of that.

Who were these people? We don't have direct evidence, but indirect evidence.

At the very, very start, not at acts 15 time, they all kept the commandments and circumcision. They preached Jesus. Gal 2 - Oppinents = Peter, James and John - the "super apostles" they are reputed pillars of the church

He was a liar.

He was a judgemental man.

I'm sorry, I can't accept that man.

"12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." - How dare he say that..He is calling my Jesus thick. Because Paul misquotes many verses, not just that...he told us that Jesus said he came to abolish the law, when Jesus himself said that he didn't come to abolish the law. He is a LIAR.

In Matthew it says that whoever doesn’t follow Jesus is not a disciple of Jesus. Paul is not Jesus’ disciple

MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN TO THE BITS FROM 21 MINUTES ONWARD TOO!


The Lord Our God, the Lord is One - Our God = Jew's and Jesus' God, their Lord. He is one singular being, the God of Noah...the God that the Jews preach, the non-trinity God.
I don't believe David, Moses, Noah etc saw the Holy Spirit as God, nor did God mention this.
Jesus echoed their beliefs about the nature of God. It was Paul that got it confused.
Paul was a liar, he was a boaster, he was a law destroyer when Jesus taught otherwise was necessary for salvation, he expected money for his teachings.

http://paulproblem.netfirms.com/acover_page.htm
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_the_coward.htm

I would love to see a debate with one of the christian scholars on here, and the BEST debator trying to show Paul is a false apostle.

Question: Is Paul a false apostle?

I made up my mind before the debate, but it would be a fun debate to watch. Try and set it up guys.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

yeah this also amazes me, why are Christians considered hostile when they try to defend the Christian faith, while those who attack the faith and religion we hold so dare are not?

Personally, I don't mind if Brianman or anybody else questions my faith, however they have rest assured that I will respond.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brianman somehow misses the point here, which is: attacking Paul, calling him a liar, deceiver and influenced by satan is similar to any criticism of Muhammad of the same nature.

Hence what Brianman does here, would normally be considered offensive. In fact in the UK people have been arrested and put on trial for saying similar things about Muhammad.

But do I welcome the criticism, I guess we all do, and we will attempt to our ability to reply to such criticism.

Fernando said...

t_a_s = Brianman saide: «He came with a "different gospel"... His message. He preached something other than Jesus' teachings. He asked for MONEY for preaching the gospel to people»...

just one proff off any off these two statements and I'll become, once agin, a muslim...

Just one proof...

c'mon t_a_s = Brianman: one single proof presented here publiquely will bee so easy to find and show... or you're juste simply boosting around like a bellow only full off air?...

you also saide: «Don't give me quotes from Peter's letters... I don't believe a single word of that»...

iff you do nott explain solidly and schoolarly why you do nott trust Peter then your demand (treat?) is a futill one... itt woulde be like saying to your fellow muslims thate they shoulde nott use this or thate quranic surah only because I do nott believe in itt... how futille can someone bee?... Does this statement hurt you? Hell maybee you do nott eben recognize wahte your are... The truth is like thate...

You saide: «How dare he say that»... and I say: how dare you to say thate? All the apostles recieved whate they saide by personal experience from Jesus... so: here's another proff thate Paul is a true apostle...

you saide: «Because Paul misquotes many verses»... no proof? iff he did so in MANY verses you'll find itt easy to present one here... don't you think so? let's waite and see... oh... please: just present any un-schoolarly video from Youtube or from unknownk authors in the net... thate's typical muslim doing...

you saide: «he told us that Jesus said he came to abolish the law, when Jesus himself said that he didn't come to abolish the law»... two umbelievelbe ignorance in one single sentence... where did Paul saide tahte Jesus saide He came to abolish the law? And where did Jesus ONLY saide tahte He did not come to abolish teh Law butt ALSO to fulffill or complete it?... I'll waite for your words... and remeber: fulffill or complete means thate the law tahte existed was nott yet fulffilled or completed...

you also saide: «In Matthew it says that whoever doesn’t follow Jesus is not a disciple of Jesus. Paul is not Jesus’ disciple»... this "following" does not mean "physhiquelly" as you know... and yes, Paul follow Jesus in whate matters: in His teachings... so far you habe nott showned us otherwise... you just habe written thate without presenting any proof... can't you present them? well... thate makes a lott off sense: there are anyone...

you also saide aboutt the Holy Spirit: «I don't believe David, Moses, Noah etc saw the Holy Spirit as God, nor did God mention this. Jesus echoed their beliefs about the nature of God. It was Paul that got it confused»...

you can beliebe in whateber you whant... unless you have solid arguments to your believes you, like all muslims, are just believing in a thief, a lier, a murderer, a paedhophilicus false-prophet thate used a false pagan god as an instrument to fullfill his barbaric urges...

Butt then: the personal divinity off the Holy Spirit is presented in the words off Jesus... don't you know thate? And since Jesus is God then God mentioned this...

no: Paul was not a false prophet: the only thin false around here is muhammad...

Royal Son said...

Brianman, the law of commandments in ordinances does not refer to the ten commandments. Not only so, but Jesus summed up the law by loving God and loving one another. Paul said the same thing.

Since we're on the subject of the law however, let me ask if you keep the Sabbath, and in what way do you keep the Sabbath?

Also, since you believe that there was just one gospel which was given to Jesus, not multiple gospels (even though when we say gospels we are referring to the presentation of that one gospel from several witnesses), could you please enlighten us what gospels (yes plural) Waraqa Ibn Nawful translated into Arabic according to the will of Allah during the pre-Islamic period? Sahih Bukhari vol 9 book 87 number 111?

Thank you.

Simon said...

hi ppl. i was away on a church young adult retreat. it was very moving.

fernando and others.

i have no problem with catholics or any other denominations. they all have their different believes. But beleive in the same God. i just have been listening and watching about catholic priests all over the news. and i was wonder y the priests? BY THE WAY I WUD LIKE TO KNW THE DIFFERENCES IN EACH CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION BELIEFS? Sorry if i offened any catholics here but the muslims can use that kind of a weakness against the christians in a debate or a argue. I wud like to knw wut i cud say if any one brings up the preist molesting little boys? im not putting catholic priests on the spot cause even pastors slip. And these people r the leaders of the church and the media can make these kinda headlines really juicy for the non muslims. again i wud like to knw some of the questions in this post. thank u

Prophet said...

Simon,
You are putting on display here your own ignorance, bigotry and disrespect for the truth. Facts that the anti-Catholicism is the one thing that will unite all non-Catholics (be they "Christian", xtian or not), and as a Catholic, I see very little that makes me feel I will NOT be persecuted by any of you. Yes, seriously, I consider so-called xtians like you as big a threat to me as mohammadans.

Firstly, it is not paedophilia, it is ephebophilia; they were all pubescent boys, not pre-pubescent (legal under islam); they were virtually all homosexual liberal priests who had infiltrated the Church.

Secondly, all denominations have sexual abuse, and at higher rates than in the Church. It is just that anti-Catholicism motivates the exagerration and non-reporting of other groups other than casual sidelines in local papers.

Thirdly, the group with the highest rate of sexual abuse are the secular teaching body.

Fourthly, these "priests" only make up at most 4% of the total number of men in the priesthood.

Fifthly, the Catholic Church is the single largest educator in the world - for Catholics and non-Catholics and especially for poor people. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charity organisations in the world today. And there is more, however, I'd hate to disturb your daily dose of anti-Catholicism with anything like the truth.

As I said, your ignorance of the facts in the sexual abuse issue only displays your personal bigotry and hate that this anti-Catholicism feeds.

Hand your Bible back on the way out Simon and go write your own.

Simon said...

prophet

yes i agree all denominations have there faults. i dont like to be any part of any denomination but i wud like to correct the lost claiming chirstians who have there own made up beliefs not backed up from the bible. If u wud like pleasently wud like to tell me the difference in each denomination beliefs. i have no issues with any chirstians but i wud correct them backed up by the bible. by the way prophet r u a christian or wut?

Simon said...

if u guys feel that we sudnt be correcting our own people then wut good r we. Jesus corrected the jews many times and many of them r christians now. I love my jewish people but hey i guess im wrong for talking about christian beliefs. wut im also trying to say is that there r a lot of christians who think Islam is a good and peaceful religion but IM HERE TO SAY THAT THERES ONLY SO MUCH GOOD A MUSLIM CAN DO. THAT IS 1 CORRUPTED RELIGION. im done talking about different christian beliefs for it can raise strong issues and hate towards me. i just wanted to knw wut the differences r

Simon said...

dear prophet

there was a child pornography issue a priest was charged for. now im not putting any one on the spot but i wud like to knw y HE did that and y he got charged for it? i didnt look much into it but im sure it was just misunderstanding. by the way prophet i have nothing against catholic or anyone. my best friend is a catholic. shes not a church person but she does follow the rituals and catholic traditions. but she doesnt have the full understanding of God and Jesus. i dont blame her. most of us r filled with the word and lasts temporary. we sud be overflowed . i dont understand y all us christians cant be on the same page

Prophet said...

Simon : My answer is as I wrote above, please read it this time and attempt to understand it without your bigoted blinders on.

aussie christian said...

To Simon,

I have read some of your questions about "Priests" molesting children and feel I need to make a couple of comments here.

1/ I think you need to get over the fact it was a priest. any Christian who molests a child is going against the very teachings of the Bible, thus becomes an antichrist.

2/ Anyone who abuses a child in any fashion or form goes against God himself and thus will be totaly distroyed on the day of judgement.

3/ The teachings of the Bible have in the past been firm in what they say, are now firm on what it says, and in the future will remain firm on what it says on the subject of abusing anyone of any age or gender, by anyone of any age or gender.

4/ If a person goes against what their church teaches and places in church law, have by the very act of going against their agreed church teachings and laws placed themselves as apostates to that religeon.

5/ As far as finding what different denominations teach as their doctrine, I would suggest you contact any you wish to study and aquire their teachings, most churches have brouchures on their basic beliefs.

5/ Lastly, may i suggest you contact the keeper of this blog to ask for your own post if you wish to ask questions which are off topic. I believe Dr Wood offered to do exactly that for another person who was asking "off topic" questions. (just a suggestion).

Anyhow, I hope this goes some small way to helping you gain a better understanding. and remember, there is no stupid question, but sometimes questions need to be worded differently.

Peace be with you.

Gem said...

Hi Simon,

So far I have only managed to write 2 postings in this blog. Honestly speaking apart from English is not my first language, I doubt I will be able to share any good knowledge as lots of the participants here are so well advanced. I am just a learner.

I learnt a lot though from the Video and Audio by RC Sproul. In fact, He stated a little bit about the difference between Catholic and Protestant Reformer. And sometimes even both the Protestant together with Catholics miss-understand the teaching of the Catholic.

I would suggest you to go to this link http://www.ligonier.org/ and find videos of
1. Justification by faith alone
2. Saving faith

Just for you to know that the video is updated almost based on daily basis thus if you wish to watch please do it before it is gone. Each video is only for about 24 minutes.

Thanks
Gem

Fernando said...

Hi Simon... may God bless you... I did not place a judgementt uppon you.. I just made a statement aboutt mie feelings aboutte whate you were saying... other good brothers off ours habe placed good answeres around here... I do not think I'm hable to do better... perhaps I can only present you some personal experience... I hoppe you don't feel boring withe this...

when I was a muslim lieving and stydying in Indonesia I became used to see an very poor old caucasian man thate, in the slums off the city where I was living, was loved by the childrens... he did not give them anything and almost did not talk... he just smilled to them and made cuddling withe his hand on the top off theire heads: it was amaizing the sheer happiness he communicated...

I was there, sent by the leaders off my madrassa, trying to see which childs would bee a good "recipient" iff come to live in it... I was envy off him: I went there with chocolats, candies, toys to give the children and no where I had the same "succes" he had...

One day I started following him... several days I did that until onne day he turned around and asked me to approche him... he saide the same words thate, one day, I knew Jesus had saide tom others: "whate do you want from me?"... he radiated peace and something else I was unable to understad att the time: love... I saide: "I want to bee like you"... He saide: "then go and bee a good muslim"... We apparted and I neber went to the slums for several weeks... During thate time I realizzed one thing: beeing a good muslime did nott made me like him... there must be something else...

I then started following him again, and one day I found where he lived... after some minuts off esitation I went there... a autochtonous person opened the door; I saide I woulde like to speak withe the old man thate had justed entered there... he saide: "Ah... father Peter... I'll call him"...

Father Peter... I thought at the time he was his father... He came and asked me to enter into the bulding... there we went to a small room where I reallized they were Christinas: a small croos was on the wall...

He was a catholic priest... he was a nuclear phisician thate became a priest in the late 50... we started talking, I began reading the NT withe him (he just talked to me after I read itt 3 times and the OT one time)... I wantted, more than ever, to become a Christian... I knew the consequences off thate action... we spoke aboutte thate and two things happened thate I'll never forget...

[end part 1]

Fernando said...

[part 2]

1) he never encouradge me to make the definitive step... he almost tryied to desincouradge me (one day he told me thate the resons to my convertion should nott be him or his words or whate he did, rather only the grace off God);

2) when I asked to be baptized (I had already been baptized in a child butt I did nott knbew thate... only after I became a Christian I spoke withe my poarents in the Philipines and they told me aboutt there being forced to become muslims...) he told me to visit persons from other denominations: he gave me the adress off 5 or 6 places where I could speak withe persons from those "churches"...

3) all off them, except father Peter, wanted me to become one off them... all off them saide to me: "we are the only true one"... I, for several years and in totall secreacy, read and read aboutt the history off each one, theire theology, theire convictions, aboutt the Bible... and then I made my choice... here itt does nott matter wich "church" I chose to follow... the only person thate gave me his bleassing to my decision was father Peter... all the others almost shutt me their doors after I made public mie choice...

I left everything I had in the madrassa and was taken outt off the country... I went again to the Philippines for some months and then I came to Europe where I started styding like a "normal" child should habe been granted the chance to do... butt then I was no more a child...

butt during thate time I, from the outside, studied the Christian denominations I reallized several things... there was an enourmous hatte agains Catholicism in almost every other denomination... in theire books there were almost as words to teach theire beliebes as to criticize the Catholic Church... on teh Catholic texts there was nott such thibg... Catholics do recognize theire mistakes, they really trie to bee goog Christians butt I never saw one, or meat one, thate stigmatizes the other Christians... off course I found several person from these denominations thate did the same aboutt the Catholics... butt guess wahet? these were, also, those who knew whate the true Catholic teachings were and did nott went to this or thate Pope or Council off the ast to say wahte the Catholics believe...

I lieve now in a cultural speaking Catholic countrie... I now aboutt Catholicism very things, and one thing is sure: whate is saide communly aboutt Catholicism by non-catholics who hate Catholicism is nott, bie any mens, true...

may God bleess you...

Simon said...

to gem
thanks for the site. it helped

to aussie christian
thanks for the clear up.

to prophet
no hard feeling.

to all
sorry for going off topic

minoria said...

Regarding the Catholic Church from my experience and reading there are 2 Catholic churches.Any person will see that,just like there are 2 Anglican churches:a liberal and a conservative one.

There are 2 kinds of Catholic priests and nuns:a liberal group(the majority) and a conservative one(the one in power).The liberal group is divided into 2 groups:

1.Those who deny some parts of the Bible are true:virgin birth,physical resurrection,etc.They also reject some doctrines like papal infallibility,purgatory,transubstatiation.

2.Those who reject some doctrines or seriously doubt it but accept basic Christian ideas:virgin birth,resurrection,incarnation.

What I am saying is it is NOT like before.Today there is alot of DIVERSITY of belief even in the clergy.It is NOT like in the 16th century or even the year 1950

Gem said...

Hi Simon,

I am pleased if those videos from RC Sproul are of any help. Bottom line is you and I are just wanting to follow the true teaching of Christ.

Bless you.
Gem

Fernando said...

Brother minoria... good summon off points you made... one think I always try to beliebe is to doo an historical hermeneutical aprouche to the texts; this is: whate does the texts want to say withe the words and ideas thate historically were at hand in a special point in time... withe this in mind many misunderstandings coulde be avoided... eben nowadays people use to go an do "copy and past" on documents withoutt having this councern and, by exporting nowadays concepts to those times, only creatt erroneous statements...

Prophet said...

Simon, there is no hard feelings felt by me, just an intolerance for those with sin throwing stones.

If you want to know what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church actually believes and teaches, then you will go to the source, not those who disagree with Her. I would suggest the Catechism available online via the Vatican (in full) and as a smaller compendium as an inexpensive book.

The link for the online is here
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

R.C.Sproul is not the best source for what the Church believes. He has authority only for his own beliefs, not the authority to speak for the Church. So through him you will only get one side of the debate.

If there is anything in the Catechism that you don't understand, or need further clarification, you may be best to go to your local Catholic Church for direction to someone who can clarify as per the real Catholic position. Or send a call out on here, and there are Catholics on here who will be pleased to discuss it with you outside of this forum.

Brianman said...

Firstly, sorry. My approach has not been too good. I just read what I wrote. I'm sorry. I know Fernando, that you are offended by it. Please accept my apology.
I've come to acknowledge that writing that way will ever help me. Please give me the chance to deliver points respectfully. Please.

You said:just one proff off any off these two statements and I'll become, once agin, a muslim...

I would like you to watch the debate between clifford and Shabir Ally: Did Paul invent Christianity? on youtube, this should answer the first point I mentioned. I couldn't give a better explanation. Because, although indirect evidence, it is still clearly evidence.

The reason why I called Paul a liar (I shouldn't have said it like that) was because when Paul went to Jerusalem, James wanted Paul to prove him he had NOT been the one sending letters/preaching a gospel which taught them against what they had been teaching at the very start. (But Paul was the person who wrote those letters at the start), which means that he did the opposite of truth.
See what Shabir had to say, and also refer to the bible. You will acknowledge the truth there.

Wow, it does feel much better writing maturely and with peace.

I would like to know, please explain to me the concept of original sin and how it links to the crucifixion. Paul's works did relate to this. He said that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

We'll go through it point at a time if that is ok with you all? rather than talk about many different topics.

I'll explain it to you. I am t_a_s...but I am a non-muslim. You got it the other way around. I just wanted to hear the christian response to issues raised. I'm not lying about me being on a spiritual journey, nor am I lying about me having an offer for medical school at top 4 uni in UK.

Peters first letter= some reject, some are not rejecting it
Peters second letter = it is rejected by nearly 100% of all scholars.

I'll answer all the other points made later on. Im in UK, it is gone past 12 at night. I need rest.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

hey Brian,

how's it going

You said


Don't give me quotes from Peter's letters... I don't believe a single word of that

I say:

Let me see if I understand you correctly so far you have made it clear that
You reject the gospels
You reject the Pauline epistles
you reject the general epistles

Yet you claim to follow Jesus

By that measure I can say I follow Mohamed.

I follow the Mohamed who was a Trinitarian Christian who taught others to love their enemies and that the only way to heaven was to trust in the sacrificial death of Jesus.

The teachings of Mohamed were lost forever when he died and bloodthirsty power hungry men substituted a forgery in their place. However If you look closely I can find traces of the original book in this corrupted text.

Please don’t give me quotes from the Quran or the hadiths all these were written down after his death and are therefore I reject them out of hand.

Do you see the circular nature of this kind of reasoning?


peace

Brianman said...

"Let me see if I understand you correctly so far you have made it clear that
You reject the gospels
You reject the Pauline epistles
you reject the general epistles"

Calm down. Let things be peaceful.

I don't outright reject the gospels. There are some definite truths, but we have to remember that they were written a long time after Jesus, and it was influenced by Pauline philosophy..."human arguement" as he likes to call it. I recommend that you watch the debate between mike licona and Dr. Bob Ehrman.

I cannot accept the Pauline epistles if I don't personally accept Paul, although he definitely has some good teachings.
I cannot accept Peters letters, you know why, nearly 100% of scholars know why (modern and ancient).

Yes, I didn't approach things very well. I didn't really have time...I may as well have not posted them.

Jesus taught us to love your enemies. I have humanitarian love for everybody. However, my enemy, just like Christians, is the devil. I'm sorry, I can't love the devil. There's no point on using this verse on me. I love my enemies - that humanitarian love that I have.
"the only way to heaven was to trust in the sacrificial death of Jesus." Now, it is this theology that I do personally question. Please refer to the thread that Letitia made for me. I want to talk about it on that thread.

Thanks to Letitia, she has made a thread so that my questions can be answered.

It would be good if Fernando could reply to my former comment.

Ilena said...

brianman,

christianity is abt jesus and not paul. and u said u loved jesus and that ur on the way of becoming a muslim. muhammads lies abt jesus dont correspond to the truth. and jesus is the truth and the way and the life. just like he said. i can understand that some1 doesnt like /rejects paul, but still pauls teachings r 100x better and more human than those ones of muhammad.

greetings

Gem said...

Dear Brianman,

You did mentioned about debate between Shabir Ally vs a Christian. But I also think you should go to www.aomin.org and find the debate between Shabir Ally vs James White.

In one of their debate, Dr White mentioned that the concept of inspiration between the Islamic teaching and Christianity is vastly different. In away, Islamic teaching believe that the transmission of narrations were 100% perfect to the one that exist in Heaven. Coming from this concept when Islamic apologist debate they demand the same to the Bible. Well, this is of course not right as the concept is totally different. Again to know better please find the debate between Shabir Ally and James White (i have downloaded myself).

From the way I see it (correct me if I am wrong) you demand the same things to the Bible thus you have absorbed the quranic line of concept. I dont find it so bizarre for you to disbelieve the Peter 1 & 2 and other apostolic writings.

When I read some part of your postings, again I find it quite amusing that you mentioned Dr Bart Ehrman. Again, I ask you to listen to the debate between Dr Bart Ehrman vs James White in regard to Misquoting Jesus. In fact, you can also have the pdf debate.

Apart from that, you may want to find the debate between Dr Bart Ehrman vs Dr Dan Wallace (A greek schoolar).

Well, socrates said long time ago, the unexamined life is not worth living but I said the unexamined faith is not worth following.

So far, you have the tendency to peel off Christian belief. Well, I can understand because Christianity is wide open for public to scrutinize. However, how many books and publications are available in islamic that we can learn from? They are a few. How many of them are critical toward islamic teaching? Very few.. why? People are scared of the ramifications of it. Granted to be haunted by both moderate and fundamental muslims.
Why? Taqqiya... hiding the bad truth of its teaching.

On one of your posing, you mentioned you were on the way to become a muslim. I am fine with that but please think it over and do research about islam and its founder. Because there is no turning back or risk death threat for apostacy.

My background: I almost became a muslim after studying Islam and Quran for 9 years back in Indonesia. It was long long time ago. There was a recite prayer that Muslims MUST pray for the salvation of Muhammad and his whole family in the 5 x prayer done by muslims. I went to ask to the Ustadz (muslim clerik) if the perfect one that Allah loved so much needs all the prayer of all muslims from beginning of Islam to the end of the world, who is going to pray for me when I die? Well, no answer at all.


Well, how do you justify the marriage of the perfect prophet with a 6/7 year old Aisha? I mean it is acceptable that prophet is not perfect however when Muhammad was caught up doing the worst he instead of repenting but rather declaring that it was alright for a prophet of God to marry a child of under age. It seems Allah was quick in pleasing and rescuing the wrongdoing of Muhammad. Allah has actually compromised his Holiness and His Just. This type of rescuing is more likely the concept of "love your enemy" with the meaning of rescuing and pleasing those who do evil things.

David in the Bible had done heinous sin, he repented. God scolded him. God did not defend him for his wrong.

In regard to "love your enemy". Wow, this does not mean to join the way of life of your enemy. If your enemy is so evil or even the devil, it does not mean you will join and rejoice with them for the sake of love. Love your enemy is the teaching that I as a Christian find it so challenging and hard to follow.

Please Brianman, put yourself in a neutral seat thus you can be more objective.

Apology for only able to use simple language to express my imperfect opinion.

Shalom

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Brian,

Trust me I am calm. Just because I’m challenging you does not mean I’m not peaceful.

You said:

I don't outright reject the gospels. There are some definite truths, but we have to remember that they were written a long time after Jesus.

I said:

I don’t out right the Quran either it contains some definite truths. I only reject those parts that conflict with the revealed word of God. We do have to remember that it was written long after Mohammad and most of the early copies were deliberately burned.

I cannot accept Peters letters, you know why, nearly 100% of scholars know why (modern and ancient).

You really need to look into the authorship of the Peterine letters. Your statement is a gross over statement in regards to 2nd Peter and simply false if we are talking about first Peter.

But before you do that

Instead of nibbling around the edges of Christianity I suggest you explore whither or not Jesus rose from the dead. If he did then all these side issues take care of them selves. If he did not then Christianity (all of it) is false, end of story.

I would suggest you start by actually reading the new testament.


Peace

Gem said...

Hi Brianman,

Just got the link that answer Bart Ehrman. Please listen to the 4 videos

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.5457379/k.8F74/Video_Interview_with_Mike_Licona_addressing_Bart_Ehrmans_skepticism.htm

And here is Dr James White Rebuttal to Shabir Ally's inconsistency.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2978

Shabir Ally vs James White DVD can be found here:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1458

Dr James White vs Bart Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus" can be found here:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=868

Majority of what your objections are answered in those debates.

So if you are serious in finding the truth, I encourage you to listen to them.

Thanks
Gem

Royal Son said...

Brianman - What were the gospels (PLURAL) that Waraqa Ibn Nawful translated into Arabic according to the will of Allah?

And do you believe that Allah's word can be changed?

If yes, does that mean you reject Surah 6:34 and Surah 10:64?

If no, where is the Injeel today?

Thank you.

ashraf said...

Hi gem,

you said
"My background: I almost became a muslim after studying Islam and Quran for 9 years back in Indonesia. It was long long time ago. There was a recite prayer that Muslims MUST pray for the salvation of Muhammad and his whole family in the 5 x prayer done by muslims. I went to ask to the Ustadz (muslim clerik) if the perfect one that Allah loved so much needs all the prayer of all muslims from beginning of Islam to the end of the world, who is going to pray for me when I die? Well, no answer at all."

hi gem, you said that you almost became muslim then how come you don't understand this simple thing about the messenger of god. Muhammed(saw) claimed himself, a messenger and slave of allah & he never claimed divinity. this is the speciality of muhammed also he warned muslims about the the christians who made jesus as god. so it is mandatory for every muslim to pray for him and his family.what is the problem here?

you asked who is going to pray for me when i die? in the same recitation where muslims praying for muhammed(saw)& his family, you can find the words for you also and you were a almost became muslim then how come you are not aware of janaaza prayer?

you said
" Well, how do you justify the marriage of the perfect prophet with a 6/7 year old Aisha?"

as a christian how do you justify birth of christ without male intervention(to an atheist)? how do you justify original sin? how do you justify trinity or triunity? how do you justify crucifiction? how do you justify jesus paid for your sins in advance? how do you justify resurrection? how do you justify the violent execution of jesus?how do you justify the bible word of god?etc....


see gem, we muslims believe it's divine relationship made by god almighty, that's all.if you are a honest person please read the biography of the great prophet and justify why he did't get married until the first wife's dead & why there is no any criticism done by the pagans of that time.please don't allege blindly like other christians here.

to brianman,

gem wrote,
On one of your posing, you mentioned you were on the way to become a muslim. I am fine with that but please think it over and do research about islam and its founder. Because there is no turning back or risk death threat for apostacy.

see brian it is your choice to investigate & chosse, there is no compulsion in Dheenul islam but, most of the christians here claiming that they were ex muslims & they threat you, no turning back. you can see the clear contradiction.

if their claim is true, they would have been killed long before, see how big liers are they.

i expect reply from Gem.

Fernando said...

Hi ashraf...

glad, always glad to see you arounde here...

you saide: «if their claim is true, they would have been killed long before, see how big liers are they»...

yeppp... precisely my point... I had to move from where I lived, I had to come to Europe, I had to change mie name... perhaps thate can explain whie I'm still alive... don't you think so? Iff there's no compulsion in religion (tahte false and abrogated surah) why did your false prophet saide "Whoeber (any muslim) change is religion, kill him"?... perhaps he was saying another lie and justt wantted to say "Whoeber (any muslim) change is religion, kiss him"... You choulde habe explained this thing to those who treattened me, and menaced my family and gave me the scare I habe in my back...

p.s.: I don't think anyone treated t_a_s = Brianman... I, for instance, always told him to search for the Truth (and was treatned by him several times...)... Jesus before being Jesus was/is the Truth... whoever searches the truth will be hugged in love bie Him...

p.p.s.: don't you think all the points you presented can easily explained to anyone who wantts to know the truth?... on the other hand, to beliebe thate muhammad was a prophet someone must deny history; philosophy; theology, humanity; dignity and so one...

Gem said...

PART 1


(1) ashraf

hi gem, you said that you almost became muslim then how come you don't understand this simple thing about the messenger of god. Muhammed(saw) claimed himself, a messenger and slave of allah & he never claimed divinity.

Gem
Hi ashraf, thank for your response. I think I understand where you are coming from. I used to think the same argument as yours above. However, ashraf, are you sure just because of Muhammad (saw) claimed himself to be the messenger and slave of Allah will make him in reality a messenger of Allah? I mean, if that is the reason that makes him the true messenger, don’t you think everybody can claim that he is the messenger of Allah and he becomes the true messenger of Allah? Do you know Joseph Smith claimed the same? Does it make him a true messenger of Allah? What do you think ashraf?

(2) ashraf
You said Muhammad (saw) never claimed divinity. this is the speciality of muhammed also he warned muslims about the the christians who made jesus as god. so it is mandatory for every muslim to pray for him and his family.what is the problem here?

Gem
You seem to argue that since Muhammad has never claimed divinity and his role was to warn muslims about the Christians who made Jesus as God, that was the reason it is mandatory for every muslim to pray for him and his family.

And to you it does not seem to have any problem at all?

Ashraf, please be honest.. what kind of prayer that every Muslim MUST pray for Muhammad and his family? Prayer of salvation.. it means Muhammad himself in reality depends on you in order to go to heaven.

How come the perfect prophet who you think is the best amongst all prophets ask the prayer of salvation from his followers? How can his followers can be more certain to go to heaven then if the leader himself is so unsure about it?


ashraf
you asked who is going to pray for me when i die? in the same recitation where muslims praying for muhammed(saw)& his family, you can find the words for you also and you were a almost became muslim then how come you are not aware of janaaza prayer?

Gem
You don’t get it, do you? I am asking “WHO” but you answer “SAME RECITATION OF PRAYER”. My focus is the numbers of people praying for Muhammad compare to those who will pray for me.

At the moment there are more than 1 billion muslims on earth. Each one of them pray 5 x 1,000,000,000,000 = 5 billions prayers offer to Muhammad’s salvation. This is not included with the Muslims from the year 600 up to say 2009. How many people pray for him? How many people are going to pray for me? If I were to convert to Muslim and my whole family do not even muslims, who will pray for me regularly?

You mentioned about Janaaza prayer? It is very illogical to pray for the dead body. And who is going to pray for me? NONE…

Gem said...

PART 2


ashraf

you said
" Well, how do you justify the marriage of the perfect prophet with a 6/7 year old Aisha?"

as a christian how do you justify birth of christ without male intervention(to an atheist)? how do you justify original sin? how do you justify trinity or triunity? how do you justify crucifiction? how do you justify jesus paid for your sins in advance? how do you justify resurrection? how do you justify the violent execution of jesus?how do you justify the bible word of god?etc....

Gem
1. Do you think by attacking Christianity you actually answer the real question?
You have not answered “how do you justify the marriage of a perfect prophet, whose life example is to be followed, with a 6/7 year old Aisha?

Please respond this and don’t bother with what Christian’s belief. Supposed Christian’s belief was wrong, so does it mean the marriage of Muhammad is justified by it? How come???????? Where the logic of it?

ashraf
see gem, we muslims believe it's divine relationship made by god almighty, that's all.if you are a honest person please read the biography of the great prophet and justify why he did't get married until the first wife's dead & why there is no any criticism done by the pagans of that time.please don't allege blindly like other christians here.

Gem
So you mean Muhammad’s marriage to a 6/7 year Aisha is a divine relationship made by God? How do you know it? Who is the witness that it was Allah who arranged it? Please give evidence…

Will you say that ONLY Muhammad said it was Allah who made him married Aisha at that young age? And no other witness? And you can trust HIM?

Can you see my point?


ashraf
to brianman,

gem wrote,
On one of your posing, you mentioned you were on the way to become a muslim. I am fine with that but please think it over and do research about islam and its founder. Because there is no turning back or risk death threat for apostacy.

ashraf
see brian it is your choice to investigate & chosse, there is no compulsion in Dheenul islam but, most of the christians here claiming that they were ex muslims & they threat you, no turning back. you can see the clear contradiction.

if their claim is true, they would have been killed long before, see how big liers are they.

i expect reply from Gem.

Gem

I don’t know if you miss-quote me or miss-type when you said “& they threat you,”. I believe you made a typo.

I am a living example of this as I have to run from Indonesia to live overseas. They almost killed when they surrounded my car but due to the love of my Christ Jesus, I was protected by HIM.

Ashraf, close your eyes at tight as possible to the reality and dream a day dream.. it will still never change the reality that apostacy in Islam is dead.

Wafa Sultan, the Palestinian who converted to Christian (it was in the news before), Salman Rushdie, to name a few.