@MC Usman,

MC Usman:

It is for you own health not to get all whirl and frenzy, stimulus.

I hope that is not supposed to be a fatwa dressed up as a friendly advice?

To be sure, I'm not perturbed or losing the plot. I'm not threatening anyone; but for crying out loud, why is it that you guys only see my counters to the uncouth retorts of your own brethren? What is wrong with you guys cautioning your own brethren to be respectful of the convictions of other people? Is it a taboo for Muslims to talk to Muslims and caution them about their brigand attitudes in dicussing issues on the Forum? Why is it that it is only when you read that I won't be entertaining such rascality anymore that all of a sudden you guys have come out to "notice" that stimulus has been saying anything?

Mutual respect costs absolutely nothing. Talk to your own brethren to behave and not invite what they cannot sustain! It is all up to them to invite an enabling atmosphere for discussions; or to continue to read what riles them. It is not my intention to keep up this trend - and I have said so many times before! If your pals would like to be at the receiving end of my baton, they are welcome to be my guest.

Cheers.

@Stimulus:

You dislike thuggery but have incessantly used it as your bastion in deriding the Trinity even after you have been appealed to SEVERAL TIMES! How many times have I personally offered you an enabling environment to discuss it, often inviting you again and again to seek to discuss issues without recourse to your sly slobbers?

We can discuss whatever we want to discuss in amicable mature ways. There is no need to invite what you cannot sustain and then come back to whimper with these lame excuses. I've often offered reasonable answers to your queries - but like I said recently, if you are allergic to rational discussions then I will no longer entertain your penchant to continually slur and disrespect Christians.

How could you have missex my mentioning of mark 12 Verse 29, which you did not even try to bring to focus in your entry? Afterall, this is from the Bible, and more importantly, from the mouth of the master himself, Jesus son of Mary (according to the Bible). I know that jesus did not lie. How do you then explain the Trinity in light of this single Verse; Mark 12;29? Afterall where there are disagreements, we must take the word of a more trusted individual: Bewteen the Bible writers on one hand and jesus on the other, I will side with Jesus, any day and any time.

In Is'lam, all the Imams said in their individual disclaimer: If you find anywhere where I have an opinion that is different from my prophet Sayiddina Muhammad bin Abdallah, disregard my opinion and take that of the Prophet (as), because if I had known his opinion before offering mine, it would have been his opinion that i would offer. This is classic deferrence of knowledge to the one who have more ad pure knowledge.

Afterall, it is Jesus who would know bettr about his own mission between he and the Bible writers (yet they could have been so many in number).

If I respond to the analysis of Trinity by M_Nwankwo, I would have to say that one of those three persons (even though they always want us to believe that it is One person, yet they write Three always), will have the same nature as the other two: eg, eating, drinking, defeacating, tiredness, sleep and slumber, being weak and powerless at the point of death, bleeding, etc and death. But we also know that God Almighty Creator never died, never tired, never warried, absolutely created and not just through Him, like the Christians associated with Jesus, has controls over all things including Angels and Jesus (remember the prayer of Jesus at the garden?), can forgive independently of anybody and all forgiveness is absolutely His alone, not a son of any body, so Mary was not His mother, but mother of Jesus (Surprisingly the angel appeared to Joseph to tell him that his wife is already pregnant; And i remember asking 4Him that was Mary already Joseph's wife in the household at that time or just that it was a future wife and husband project, while mary was still under the authority and guardianship of Zacharia, a male relative? I jokingly ask 4Him if he believed that the virginity odf mary would have lasted the night if they married just few hours before, putting into considerations the Sematic sexual obligations and even 4Him's personal statement that he will 'eat the yam, the moment he actually have the right to it), through the pregnancy brought about by "the holy spirit,' yet they called "God the father," his father and failed to call him son of holy spirit.

In all we will see that each idea negates the other in a way that there is doubt through it all. How can jesus be his own father, getting his own mother pregnant? I remember as a child the song in Yoruba: Oyun oko ko rara, oyun ale ko rara, emi mimo to mi wa, edumare to mi wa, lagbara oga ogo, OSIJI BOMI LORI O, (I think you Christians from Yorubaland know the truth and the whole story. Tell your non Yoruba Christian friends). OSIJI BOMI LORI O; means he came over me and cover me( I bet if that is not mounting or Sire (intercourse, I do not know what that is), yet we see our Christian friends trying to convince us that there is not sex involved here!

But we all forget that God Created Adam and his wife eve, without any example, and brought them to life by just a simple command process "Be, and it is!" Yet he allowed then to bring forth children by the way we accept most children are brought about. But that is not the only way: We have seen surrogate motherhood, and others process, yet knowledge is not complete.

@Olabowale,

Thanks for your input on my submission on Trinity. I submitted that a "part" of God the Father is Jesus. Equally this "part" of God the Father is one with the Father and yet personal. The physical body of Jesus, the son of God is purely a physical body like the bodies of any other earthmen. Thus it has to feel hunger, thirst etc. However, it is the essence, the core of Jesus that is God. The physical body of Jesus was simply an instrument that he used to experience during his mission on earth and like all physical bodies, it was subject to birth, growth and death. Therefore you have the physical body of the Jesus and the innermost core of Jesus. The innermost core of Jesus is God and it is this core that animated the physical body of Jesus while he was on earth. When the physical body of Jesus was destroyed through an act of murder, the core of Jesus, that is Jesus, returned to God the Father and reunited with his Father since he is a "part" of the Father.His physical body was subject to the laws of development but the God that is Jesus is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscience. Thus Jesus as God cannot die, cannot be born, has no beginning and has no end. However the instrument (Jesus physical body) that Jesus used on earth in order to convey to mankind the Truth is subject to those feelings that emanate from the physical body. Anytime God, the almighty Creator decides to enter his creation in order to reveal himself to his creatures, then he must envelop himself in a physical body. This is because it is Gods law that to live on earth and communicate with the enviroment, you must pick a physical body. That process happened with the incarnation of the son of God in a male sex, Jesus of Nazareth. It is an incomprehensible act of love from God, the almighty Father. Therefore if you are able to sense that the physical body of Jesus is not the essence of Jesus but merely an instument that he used on earth, then much may become clearer. I will be willing to discuss further with you on this issue if you raise specific points that need to be addressed. Thanks and stay blessed.

Stimulus, I advise you to take a cue from this man, M_nwankwo. This is how to argue. You plung into it, directly, not have stepping with rage and anger that you have displayed, so far.

M_nwankwo, I will come back to you, later with a rebuttal, specifically concerning Jesus as god, part of god and son of god, all at the same time. Yet he had declared himself as prophet, in many verses as well as making a clear distinction between himself and God, if we examine Mark 12 ;29. He also shown himself as a comforter as he expected other comforter to come after him. If he was a prophet, as well as a comforter as also declaring that he was different and having the same God and Lord as his audience.

If you then say from your piece above that Jesus was god, son of god and part of god, i will then remind you that this idea in thought will be completely opposing the other ideas of him being prophet, comforterand have Lord and God in common with ordinary people, which idea is correct, considering that the two can not be correct at the same time?

If we are to observe the two ideas, we will see that Jesus was the one who called himself, prophet, comforter and having a common Lord and God as everyone else. The opinion of Jesus being god, son of god and part of god, did not come from him. There is no way that we can process all of these two sets of opposite ideas without concluding that one of them is completely wrong or at least that they just do not agree with the other set.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Stimulus, I advise you to take a cue from this man, M_nwankwo. This is how to argue. You plung into it, directly, not have stepping with rage and anger that you have displayed, so far.

I do not argue aimlessly; and if you mind your incessant ridiculing of the Trinity and subjects you do not understand, you won't need to be complaining about my responses. I haven't seen you argue directly in any subject without recourse to dishonest remarks and sly innuendos. Cut out the patronizing hypocrisies and let's read some honest debates in yours.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

How could you have missex my mentioning of mark 12 Verse 29, which you did not even try to bring to focus in your entry? Afterall, this is from the Bible, and more importantly, from the mouth of the master himself, Jesus son of Mary (according to the Bible). I know that jesus did not lie.

I did not miss Mark 12:29, and if truth be told, I have personally invited you to a discussion of that verse several times! Why this hypocrisy, olabowale? Are you not the same fella who begged that I should not consult the original languages of the Bible when discussing that very verse and John 1:1 as regards the Trinity? You cannot be disingenuously making such remarks when you are the same person who refused to enter a discussion of that verse!

olabowale:

How do you then explain the Trinity in light of this single Verse; Mark 12;29?

Rather than remain on just one verse of the Bible, the whole needs to be considered before making any inference. The Bible itself teaches that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20), and one has to look at any particular verse contextually in relation to other verses in order to get the full meaning of what is being taught. To ignore this principle, olabowale, is to read your own fancies into the Bible (a principle known as "eisegesis" - and this is what Muslims have been doing all along!

When you break the very principle of reading and interpretting the Bible, your own assumptions then become a waste; and you will be hard pressed convincing anybody that you have arrived at the meaning of a verse in the Bible.

olabowale:

Afterall where there are disagreements, we must take the word of a more trusted individual: Bewteen the Bible writers on one hand and jesus on the other, I will side with Jesus, any day and any time.

Good. If you're going to be honest and side with Jesus any day and any time, please understand that the same Jesus clearly said that He is the Son of God!

In the same Mark's Gospel, the high priest questioned Him directly with these words: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And from Jesus' lips came the answer: "I am" - Mark 14:61-62.

Will you still be the hypocrite "any day and any time" who refuses to side with Jesus when He declared that He is the Son of the Blessed?

olabowale:

In Is'lam, all the Imams said in their individual disclaimer: If you find anywhere where I have an opinion that is different from my prophet Sayiddina The Great Prophet bin Abdallah, disregard my opinion and take that of the Prophet (as), because if I had known his opinion before offering mine, it would have been his opinion that i would offer. This is classic deferrence of knowledge to the one who have more ad pure knowledge.

Such a disclaimer demonstrates the rigid hypocrisy of your Imams, mullahs and ulema who slave themselves on the classic denials of Muhammed.

The revelations of the Biblical prophets are not the "opinions" of men; for "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). So, if your Imams are fond of making such classic disclaimers as you stated in deference of the classic denials of Muhammad, they all the more confirm that his "opinions" do not count in the face of Biblical revelations given to the Prophets!

olabowale:

Afterall, it is Jesus who would know bettr about his own mission between he and the Bible writers (yet they could have been so many in number).

The writers were His disciples (except Luke) - and they recorded Jesus' ministry as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). They should know better than Muhammad who confused issues several centuries later and never saw Jesus at any one time; and often making things up as he went along - to the extent he was both denying and fabricating events which he claimed were "revelations" from 'Allah'.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

If I respond to the analysis of Trinity by M_Nwankwo, I would have to say that one of those three persons (even though they always want us to believe that it is One person, yet they write Three always), will have the same nature as the other two: eg, eating, drinking, defeacating, tiredness, sleep and slumber, being weak and powerless at the point of death, bleeding, etc and death.

You would only come to that inference because you have failed to understand the NATURE and ESSENCE of 'GOD'. This is why you need to refrain from your otiose noise and read the Bible instead, so that you can better understand what it teaches.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the LOGOS, and as such He is God (John 1:1). That same chapter records that He became Man (John 1:14) - which would no doubt mean that He would live on the earth as a Man, both eating and drinking (Matt. 11:19), experiencing sleep (Matt. 8:24), bleeding from wounds inflicted upon Him (John 19:34), and experiencing death in the flesh (John 19:30).

However, all this did not affect His divinity nor negate the fact that He is God. For He demonstrated His Deity in healing the sick and casting out demons by His word (Matt. 8:16), declared the authority of His divinity in stating that all men should honour Him even as  they honour the Father (John 5:23), and His resurrection ultimately proved His divine Sonship (John 21:14).

Your problem here is to assume that death finalizes everything, and therefore points to weakness and powerlessness. How wrong and assuming you can be, olabowale. Death did not negate the divine power of the Son of God; for even in death, He went and preached unto the spirits in prison (in the underworld - 1 Peter 3:19), and the Bible declares that it was impossible for death to hold him bound (Acts 2:24).

What you have done and have been doing is to reduce the Divinity of Jesus to mere humanity - just the same way you assume about Muhammad who denied the divine Sonship of Christ. What you don't realize is that you're slaving yourself on a huge lie that sounds plausible; but that lie collapses in the face of enormous revelations of the Biblical prophets who pointed out that the Messiah is God. You cannot ask us to look at the tales of the Quraish prophet and jettison the weighty evidence of the Biblical prophets who came earlier!

Against all your arguments of cherry-picking verses from the Bible, there are both OT prophecies and NT fulfillment that point to the divine Sonship of Christ. Since the Qur'an demands that Muslims must believe in the revelations of ALL the Biblical prophets, I would like to see what your reaction would be by the time I post those verses and ask you to discuss or DENY them based on Muhammad's tales.

Do you care to discuss those prophecies, olabowale?

olabowale:

But we also know that God Almighty Creator never died, never tired, never warried, absolutely created and not just through Him, like the Christians associated with Jesus, has controls over all things including Angels and Jesus (remember the prayer of Jesus at the garden?), can forgive independently of anybody and all forgiveness is absolutely His alone, not a son of any body, so Mary was not His mother, but mother of Jesus (Surprisingly the angel appeared to Joseph to tell him that his wife is already pregnant;

You are sounding even more childish and incoherent. What do you mean by "Mary was not His mother, but mother of Jesus"? Is this how beggarly you have reduced your argument - just ranting and making no sense?

olabowale:

And i remember asking 4Him that was Mary already Joseph's wife in the household at that time or just that it was a future wife and husband project, while mary was still under the authority and guardianship of Zacharia, a male relative?

Now, let me ask you - was Mary ever under the "authority and guardianship" of Zacharia? Please don't evade that question, because if you do, I would have no alternative than to expose your hypocrisy in this wishy-washy ideas even more.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

I jokingly ask 4Him if he believed that the virginity odf mary would have lasted the night if they married just few hours before, putting into considerations the Sematic sexual obligations and even 4Him's personal statement that he will 'eat the yam, the moment he actually have the right to it), through the pregnancy brought about by "the holy spirit,' yet they called "God the father," his father and failed to call him son of holy spirit.

You're hoping that the Biblical prophets would have to wait until olabowale was born before they could call Jesus whatever you're hoping to read! For sure, the Bible clearly referred to Jesus as the "child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18) in context of how Mary became pregnant with Jesus (see Luke 1:35 which describes what happened).

Your thinking confirms that you have never read the Bible, and you have a typically prejudicial mindset to argue childishly about issues you have no clues about! Instead of making noise endlessly, throw your kettle away, roll your mat to one corner, stop knocking your head several times on the ground shouting Lai-la-la-yada-yada. . . and READ the Bible before assuming anything!

If you think that Muhammad's tales in the Qur'an are worth the dust in Medina, you're joking with your destiny - and the rubors is what we often read in your arguments!

olabowale:

In all we will see that each idea negates the other in a way that there is doubt through it all.

In all, we see that what the Bible teaches as a coherent whole strengthens the faith of those who take the time to examine it. The prophecies of the Biblical prophets are not to be mistaken for the Qur'an whic clearly says that Muhammad's teachings are certain to increase contunmacy and disbelief (Qur. 5 v 68).

olabowale:

How can jesus be his own father, getting his own mother pregnant?

WHERE does the Bible teach that Jesus is His own Father, olabowale?

This kind of remarks is quite illiterate, because you are forcing yourself to whip up every excuse that you cannot defend from either the Bible, Qur'an or your sahih hadiths! It is so embarrassing that the only thing I've come to see about Muslim thinking are lies and illiteracy! Every time you guys open your mouth, na LIE and illiteracy go "jabo" automatically! You no dey shame at all?

olabowale:

I remember as a child the song in Yoruba: Oyun oko ko rara, oyun ale ko rara, emi mimo to mi wa, edumare to mi wa, lagbara oga ogo, OSIJI BOMI LORI O,  (I think you Christians from Yorubaland know the truth and the whole story. Tell your non Yoruba Christian friends). OSIJI BOMI LORI O; means he came over me and cover me( I bet if that is not mounting or Sire (intercourse, I do not know what that is), yet we see our Christian friends trying to convince us that there is not sex involved here!

I'd advise you get your dirty mind out of the gutter so you can reason clearly! The incarnation of Christ did not involve any sexual intercourse - and I've posted the verses (Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:35) where the Bible declares how the birth of Christ came about.

Did The Great Prophet with his sex-drive teach you olabowale that the birth of Jesus Christ involve any "mounting or sire" to involve sexual intercourse? Can you get your filthy mindset off your arabian gutter for a moment? You just can't contain yourself when it comes to lewd thinking, and it is no wonder that with all your Lai-la-ila-yada-yada, you still are slaving your conscience to prove your moral looseness.

olabowale:

But we all forget that God Created Adam and his wife eve, without any example, and brought them to life by just a simple command process "Be, and it is!" Yet he allowed then to bring forth children by the way we accept most children are brought about. But that is not the only way: We have seen surrogate motherhood, and others process, yet knowledge is not complete.

It is because you're so confused in Islam that is why you keep remarking that "knowledge is not complete" after you've argued senselessly! Why do you force yourself to make assertions that you never read either in the Bible or Qur'an? Is duplicity and mendacity the chief qualities you celebrate in your religion?

@Stimulus:

I did not miss Mark 12:29, and if truth be told, I have personally invited you to a discussion of that verse several times! Why this hypocrisy, olabowale? Are you not the same fella who begged that I should not consult the original languages of the Bible when discussing that very verse and John 1:1 as regards the Trinity? You cannot be disingenuously making such remarks when you are the same person who refused to enter a discussion of that verse!

So don't you explain it here and now? Why another thread on it? Begged, you wrote? Where did I beg you and why should I beg you? You must definitely be dillusional! If Greek is the Original language of revelation, then that will be news to Jesus son of Mary, who received the revelation from his Lord God the Creator. I do not remember that he was recorded speaking Greek and that he was a Greek. Each response from you shows how offtopic your try and in all of that effort, have been unseccessful.

Would the original Bible language really include Greek, except you take early language(s) that it was translated into as part of the original language of Bible revelation? I do not know when the Greek ruled over the Children of Israel? And it is not clear if the Romans spoke Greek, instead of their latin or italian. The Gospel that Jesus preached about, was it in greek? Absolutely not. And if you and me were to be having this argument in the company of elderly Yoruba people in any part of the Yorubaland, I am sure that Even English language will be inappropriate. You and me will assume that yoruba language is a better means of dialogue there.

To then use Greek words when convenient and abandoned it for Hebrew or Aramaic (the two possible languages of revelation) is absurd. You are wasting my time and I do not appreciate it. Stick to the plan. Expalin yourself or answer my questions where ever I asked them. To suggest that we open a thread for every question is immatured way of argument or an attempt to dilute the discussion.