Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected (6267 Views)
Take The Gospel Story Quiz To Prove Your Bible Knowledge! / 5 Things To Avoid When Evangelizing/sharing The Gospel / Ten Reasons Why Sex Should Wait . (2) (3) (4)
| Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maksky(m): 3:38pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Ask a Trinitarian for evidence of the divinity of Jesus and they will undoubtedly direct you to Gospel of John. Evidence put forward from this Gospel is ambiguous at best and often taken out of context or misinterpreted. Remove the Gospel of John from the New Testament equation and there is very little left in the Trinitarian’s armoury to appeal to for evidence of the divinity of Jesus. If you take away this Gospel, any Biblical foundation for the Trinity, ambiguous or otherwise, comes crashing down. So from a Trinitarian’s perspective the stakes for the Gospel of John are very high. The link below gives 10 reasons that the Gospel of John is not a reliable historical account of the life and teachings of Jesus: http://manyprophetsonemessage.com/2015/05/12/ten-reasons-why-we-must-reject-the-gospel-of-john/ |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Demmzy15(m): 3:39pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
 |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by johnydon22(m): 3:49pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
So you are suggesting people just remove any part of their scripture that doesn't suit your ideology or doctrine? Maybe if you really need to remove things from your bible you have to start from the old testament that boast of some barbaric blood drenched mythical fabricated history... And maybe you need to start the campaign of adding the gospels that didn't make it into the bible. If you accept whatever you like from your scriptures/gospels and reject the one you don't like, it is not the scriptures/gospels you believe but yourself 2 Likes |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by K9blunt(f): 4:47pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
johnydon22: Beautifull!!!! |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by NumberOne2(m): 6:06pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Maksky: STOP trying to make the bible believable, THAT IS THE WORK OF GOD. There are many who believe it as it is. Just share it "as is" and let God do the rest. Go read the scriptures, Salvation is not of works... PS: Instead of removing, why not write your own. The gospel according to Maksky.  3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Scholar8200(m): 6:24pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Maksky: 1. It takes a Divinity to accept worship (not even angels accept worship but all the Gospels show Jesus accepting the worship from men). 2. The Gospel of John records that Jesus is the Son of God; the other Gospels affirm same! Eg John 5:26,27 = Matthew 25:31= Luke 1:32,35 = Luke 2:49=Matthew 16:16=Mark 9:7 etc 3. The Epistle to the Colossians establishes the Divinity and Supremacy of Christ as a rebuttal to the claims of gnostics then and neo-gnostics now (those who kind of deny the divinity of Christ!. or submit that He is a sort of lesser 'god'!.) I invite you to read the entire book to aid an appreciation of the Supremacy and Centrality of Christ. 4. Finally, kindly take Revelations 22:18,19 seriously. Stay blessed. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Scholar8200(m): 6:24pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Besides, how about others like this Hebrews 1:2,3,5,8? Do we edit them too? Let me amplify this one: Hebrews 1:8 But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness). and Titus 1:13 not forgetting 1 Timothy 3:16? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 7:27pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
There are many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. They all have mistakes in them. Lots of accidental mistakes (hundreds of thousands) from times that scribes were inept, inattentive, sleepy, or otherwise careless; and even lots of mistakes that appear to be places that scribes altered the text to make them say something other than what it originally said. You don’t appear to get that with the Qur’an. - Bart D. Ehrman 1 Like |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 7:33pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 7:38pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Plainbibletruth, can we discuss the OP? |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by malvisguy212: 8:43pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:and what about the quran manuscript? |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 8:56pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
malvisguy212: Attack the message, not the messenger, Mr. man. He was actually discussing this news on his facebook page, and decided to share the message here. So, it is either you face the OP or address my post without digressing. No time for BS. |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maamin(m): 9:32pm On Jul 27, 2015 |
Rilwayne001: So you could not just point him to where the quran manuscript is?  Oh! May be there is none. |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 6:08am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Maamin: Why don't you click on the news instead of coming here to form jetLi 1 Like |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by malvisguy212: 6:36am On Jul 28, 2015 |
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm
Koran: Earliest complete manuscript
200 AH or 800AD!
Muslims are fond of the myth that there
are complete copies of the Koran dating
from the year Muhammad died. The
scientific facts say otherwise!
There are no ancient copies of the
Koran dating before 750 AD in
museums. We challenge you to prove
us wrong! Send us the name, locate and
date of the Koran written earlier! Email
Brother Andrew
Islam: Truth or Myth?
start page
The earliest complete Koran manuscript in
existence in museums today are hundreds of
years after Muhammad died:
The Muslim false claim:
"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur'an
which were originally prepared in the time of
Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today
and their texts and arrangement can be
compared, by anyone who cares to, with any
other copy of the Qur'an, be it in print or
handwriting, from any place or period of time.
They will be found to be identical." (Von
Denffer, Ulum al-Qur'an, p 64)
The truth:
Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran
that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality
is different.
Two ancient partial copies of Koran that are in
existence are the Samarqand MSS is in
Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi
Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do
not know, is that because these two manuscripts
were written in a script style called "Kufic",
practicing Muslim scholars generally date these
manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after
Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts
been compiled any earlier, they would have
been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script
style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-
Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John
Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims,
1989)
Further, only one-third of the original
Samarkand MSS in Tashkent survives. There are
about 250 pages written in a bold Arabic script
on deerskin. It is written in "Hejaz" in Saudi
Arabia, so the script is Hejazi, (Kufic script).
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran
written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed
in the British Museum in London (Lings &
Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But
scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a
practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for
the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates
this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the
earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes
one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes
the Samarqand MSS is the 'most likely
candidate for the original'.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities
will not release photographs of the ancient
Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are
no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim
apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning
the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of
studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual
Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman
Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this
manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the
world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says
"Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of
the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years
after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no
archeological evidence dated at the time when
Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact,
manuscript or inscription has ever been found
were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a
prophet".
If you don't believe me, listen to faithful
Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum
al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts
Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original
Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable
fragments, that are still available to us now, are
not earlier than the second century after the
Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was
exhibited in the British Museum during the
1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the
late second century.' However, there are also a
number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri
available, which date from the first
century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des
Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften',
in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33- 
There are no ancient copies of the
Koran dating before 750 AD in
museums. We challenge you to prove
us wrong! Send us the name, locate and
date of the Koran written earlier! Email
Brother Andrew |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by malvisguy212: 6:36am On Jul 28, 2015 |
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm
Koran: Earliest complete manuscript
200 AH or 800AD!
Muslims are fond of the myth that there
are complete copies of the Koran dating
from the year Muhammad died. The
scientific facts say otherwise!
There are no ancient copies of the
Koran dating before 750 AD in
museums. We challenge you to prove
us wrong! Send us the name, locate and
date of the Koran written earlier! Email
Brother Andrew
Islam: Truth or Myth?
start page
The earliest complete Koran manuscript in
existence in museums today are hundreds of
years after Muhammad died:
The Muslim false claim:
"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur'an
which were originally prepared in the time of
Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today
and their texts and arrangement can be
compared, by anyone who cares to, with any
other copy of the Qur'an, be it in print or
handwriting, from any place or period of time.
They will be found to be identical." (Von
Denffer, Ulum al-Qur'an, p 64)
The truth:
Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran
that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality
is different.
Two ancient partial copies of Koran that are in
existence are the Samarqand MSS is in
Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi
Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do
not know, is that because these two manuscripts
were written in a script style called "Kufic",
practicing Muslim scholars generally date these
manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after
Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts
been compiled any earlier, they would have
been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script
style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-
Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John
Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims,
1989)
Further, only one-third of the original
Samarkand MSS in Tashkent survives. There are
about 250 pages written in a bold Arabic script
on deerskin. It is written in "Hejaz" in Saudi
Arabia, so the script is Hejazi, (Kufic script).
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran
written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed
in the British Museum in London (Lings &
Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But
scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a
practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for
the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates
this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the
earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes
one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes
the Samarqand MSS is the 'most likely
candidate for the original'.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities
will not release photographs of the ancient
Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are
no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim
apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning
the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of
studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual
Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman
Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this
manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the
world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says
"Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of
the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years
after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no
archeological evidence dated at the time when
Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact,
manuscript or inscription has ever been found
were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a
prophet".
If you don't believe me, listen to faithful
Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum
al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts
Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original
Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable
fragments, that are still available to us now, are
not earlier than the second century after the
Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was
exhibited in the British Museum during the
1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the
late second century.' However, there are also a
number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri
available, which date from the first
century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des
Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften',
in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-
There are no ancient copies of the
Koran dating before 750 AD in
museums. We challenge you to prove
us wrong! Send us the name, locate and
date of the Koran written earlier! Email
Brother Andrew |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 7:07am On Jul 28, 2015 |
^^ Illiterate, read! Read! and Read. Stop copying and pasting for once. malvisguy212, use your brain for what its meant for and not the other way round,. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/europe/uk-quran-birmingham-manuscript/ http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7846208 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-manuscripts-uk-150722110034399.html Following radiocarbon analysis by the University ofhttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worlds-oldest-quran-prophet-muhammad-era-manuscript-found-birmingham-university-1511971 http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/islam/oldest-quran-manuscript-discovered-at-university-of-birmingham https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jowQond7_UE |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by malvisguy212: 7:37am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:you should be the one to used your brain. This is from the link you paste: " What is believed to be the world's oldest fragment of the Quran has been found at the University of Birmingham." OUT of all places, its is in Birmingham!! England this manuscript is found? Lies from the pit of hell. |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 8:14am On Jul 28, 2015 |
malvisguy212: Illiterate, this has been the reason why you have been adviced to go back to school, but you wouldn't listen. What a knucklehead you are  The manuscript are said to have been kept with a collection of other Middle Eastern books and documents and remained unrecognised in the university library for almost a century. For many years, they had been misbound with leaves of a similar Koran manuscript, which is datable to the late seventh century. But when a PhD researcher studied the two parchment leaves,she concluded that they should be properly examined. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11754962/Oldest-fragments-of-the-Koran-found-in-Birmingham-library.html It is not until a radiocarbon analysis was carried out on the manuscript that this exciting discovery is made known. 1 Like |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by malvisguy212: 8:54am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:thank you for the insult even Doug you cannot answer my questions, still something is not right. |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 9:04am On Jul 28, 2015 |
malvisguy212: How do you want me to answer your question again  You have been told that the manuscript is part of the middle eastern documents in the university library, and you are telling me your question hasn't been answered? how else do you want it to be answered?? Oga, go back to school.. Until you start using your brain by reading extensively at the same time stop copying article blindly, you will forever remain a mediocre. Now, can we now move on to the OP? I doubt you can. For it is way over your head. 2 Likes |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maksky(m): 9:14am On Jul 28, 2015 |
NumberOne2: Did you even click the link and read the article!? |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Scholar8200(m): 9:16am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Moreover, op, can you show me parts of the Gospel of John that is not in agreement with the Law , Prophets and other Gospels and Epistles? Remember: Isaiah 9:6 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Was God's declaration through Isaiah. Besides, David was inspired when he said: Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maksky(m): 10:11am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Scholar8200: CLEARLY THIS ONE DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ THE ARTICLE OR IF HE/SHE DID, NO COMPREHENSION WAS GAINED You asked to be shown parts of the gospel of John that is not in agreement with other gospels and epistles, then READ reasons 2 and 4 of the article I presented through the link |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by NumberOne2(m): 10:25am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Maksky: I didn't need to and most people WILL NOT. (I still havent). Your title and brief write up were enough unless they were FALSE REPRESENTATIONS of the original article. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Scholar8200(m): 10:33am On Jul 28, 2015 |
Maksky: The gospels complement one another. You will readily agree with me that no man is an island of knowledge;I will also add that the Spirit was not sent to make individuals islands of knowledge, independent of others! Else what is the role of teaching and preaching if every believer is to know everything? Hence, four gospels was given that one might complement the other. Now for reason 2, the fact that other gospels did not record that event does not mean it did not happen! The fact that other Gospels did not record the encounter of Christ with the woman of Samaria at the well does not mean it did not happen! The degree of bias of the author is alarming! Why refer to John as the author in point 3 only to deny this in point 1 Like I said,the coming of the Spirit and Inspiration does not make us independent of other believers! Now, did Christ command them not to stone her? The people who wanted to execute the law were also guilty! Was that God's purpose for the law: punishment to the one not smart enough to cover his tracks (though all be guilty?!) Then point 4, the substance of the matter is that Jesus died and rose from the dead as prophesied! If John had said something different, it would have merited our attention! Clicking on the link, I saw an inscription in arabic which made me know what to expect. See, millions have heard or read and believed in accordance to John 3:16 and were not disappointed: they received Life and were free from condemnation; others have read John 17 and as they sought God, received the gift of a heart made pure; as they continued in the Lord, they died and some even rejoiced and testified of entering into God's Presence and shortly died in peace. This was the goal of other Gospels and the Gospel of John! That is what matters! John 20:30,31 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. In addition, the points you referred to only pointed to Matthew; how about the Epistles, Prophets and the Law and what they had to say about Christ vis a vis the Gospel of John? etc Or will you say Jesus was also breaking the law when HE healed on the sabbath as recorded by Luke and Mark? Or when He declared," The Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath" Matthew 12:8? |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by McSterling(m): 4:44pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
Scholar8200:Actually, John is very different from the synoptic gospels. This is an established fact. And it's the latest of the four, giving room for embellishments. There are/were many gospels. Stop emphasising on four like there aren't more. Four were only selected at the council of Nicea by men no smarter than you. What all these gospels have in common is that they were not written by eye witnesses. It however reduces the reliability of the account. One of the methods historians use to establish that an event did happen in the past is agreement between independent sources. If there aren't outside sources to support said account, it can not be established. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by An2elect2(f): 5:21pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
johnydon22: 50% correct! This is incredible  |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Scholar8200(m): 6:07pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
McSterling: 1. Give those embellishments and show how they contradict other prophesies, patterns and principles in the Law, Prophets, Epistles and other Gospels! 2. A good number of the other 'gospels' are the ones contaminated by the gnostics: a cult that existed in pre-christian times. It was the error of this same cult that Paul confronted in the Epistle to the Colossians. In fact it wont be illogical to say that the emphasis of the Divinity of Christ by John shows that he was also countering the lie of the Gnostics (existence of lesser, intermediary gods and perhaps trying to make Jesus one of them). That is why John specifically wrote: 1 John 4:2,3a By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, The highlighted was a direct rebuttal to the lie of the gnostic gospellers that Christ did not actual come in the flesh (rings a bell!.) because of their belief that the flesh is intrinsically evil. 3.Would we also write off the 1,2 and 3 John and the Revelations? A careful consideration of the former shows a similarity in style with the Gospel of John viz: a mystical perspective. 4. That John was silent about the transfiguration in his Gospel does not means he denied it; in fact he later referred to it in 1 John. 5. The record of Zacchaeus, parable of Lazarus and the rich man etc are peculiar only to Luke, going by your parameter, do we then discredit those too? Inspiration was not designed to foster independence and mental perfection; the 4 Gospels that made it into the Bible are complementary and prove that, in spite of what the devil may try God will preserve that which is His: Isaiah 34:16 Seek from the book of the Lord, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, And His Spirit has gathered them. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maamin(m): 6:09pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
Rilwayne001: Still more wasted mb, time and space...answer to the question still pending:does your [size=14pt]quran[/size] [size=16pt]have a manuscript[/size]? |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Rilwayne001: 6:13pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
Maamin:. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/europe/uk-quran-birmingham-manuscript/ http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7846208 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-manuscripts-uk-150722110034399.html Following radiocarbon analysis by the University ofhttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worlds-oldest-quran-prophet-muhammad-era-manuscript-found-birmingham-university-1511971 http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/islam/oldest-quran-manuscript-discovered-at-university-of-birmingham https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jowQond7_UE |
| Re: Ten Reasons Why The Gospel Of John Should Be Rejected by Maamin(m): 6:31pm On Jul 28, 2015 |
Rilwayne001: How quick and easy for u to run to an european site for help..yet you claim they are against islam and the quran,saying articles from them are not to be trusted. Besides why is it just a fragment dont the quran have a complete manuscript? |
What Renowned Physicists Say About God's Existence / When Last Did You Go Out For Evangelism? / Why Islam is a Cult of Mohammed!
Viewing this topic: 2 guest(s)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 104 |