Kwanini kitabu cha Enoch kinapingwa vikali na Wanathiolojia?

[Gavana]

Romans 3:2
Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the boracles of God

Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”


Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible | CARM.org

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

St Paul has always been something of an enigma in New Testament studies, not least because of his "advanced" theology from such an apparently early date. Though contemporaneous, supposedly, with the godman Paul never meets a human Jesus and yet he becomes the most important apostle of the new religion. Then again, the man and his seminal epistles, by convention placed in the mid-years of the 1st century, are actually unheard of until late in the 2nd century. Could our hero from Tarsus be a pious fabrication – just like Jesus and the rest of the gang? ​

A Jew called Saul? An apostle called Paul? Or just plain invention? From religious policeman to grandee of the church, from beast fighter in Ephesus to beheading in Rome, Paul's story has more holes than a swiss cheese.

Curiously, the trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age. Ironically, though supposedly in Jerusalem at the right time, he can give no witness to a historical Jesus. But was Paul himself a genuine historical figure? The Pauline journeys, including the supposed transportation of the apostle to Rome, are characterized by incongruities, contradiction, and the absurd.

A closer look at the great missionary that some say "founded Christianity".​

 

[Gavana]

Romans 3:2
Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the boracles of God

Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”


Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible | CARM.org

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!

 

[2013]

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!

potatoe

https://www.jamiiforums.com/index.php?threads/1525901/

 

[Gavana]

potatoe

https://www.jamiiforums.com/index.php?threads/1525901/

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem" - 9.28), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles (9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

​

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." – Acts 16.4,5.​

From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried away" (Galatians 2.12,13).

 

[2013]

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem" - 9.28), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles (9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." – Acts 16.4,5.​

From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried away" (Galatians 2.12,13).

All these are Un koranic and Un biblical arguments.
Carry no Weight to me to reconsidered.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[Gavana]

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

The Implausible Paul

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who "went bad", a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism's irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?

How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee (Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule "Jesus group" in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen ("They all scattered abroad ... except the apostles." – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn't Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

"Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians ... Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled." – Murphy O'Connor, Paul, His History, p19.​

Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul's road trip is even more implausible.

 

[Gavana]

All these are Un koranic and Un biblical arguments.
Carry no Weight to me to reconsidered.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

KAZI KWAKO KUSUKA AU KUNYOA


Convert?

How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the perambulations and miraculous deeds of the godman himself – short of the supposed blinding "miracle" – why would he, of all people, so readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

There is also a curious parallel between the alleged "persecution" speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul ("Saul, Saul ... ") and the persecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work "the Bacchae" – and both use the word "goads".

If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had been rejected by the High Priest's daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion, 16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of the apostle.

The "persecution" of the early church seems an extraordinarily unlikely construct because once Saul, the "destroyer of the saints", transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly stops. The "persecution" is entirely a one man circus.

" Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." – 9:31​

The entire pre-Christian "Saul, the scourge of the church" makes no sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as theology. "Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian." The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is bogus.

 

[Hardwood]

Islam is a religion of satan.


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

 

[Gavana]

Islam is a religion of satan.


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

Christianity is a religion of angels. Here they are

 

[Mpini Wa Chuma]

IF WE DON'T COMMIT SIN, ALLAH WILL KILL US

Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6622 Abu Huraira stated that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah pray on him and salute him) said, “By Him, which in his Hand is my life, if you mankind were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of the world, and He would exchange you with people who would perform sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He then would forgive them.”

Allah will kill only those who do not commit sins. This is a clear proof that the Qur’an copied the Biblical story of Noah’s flood and inserted as Qur’an 11:40–44. The Biblical story speaks about God destroying the “bad ones” and rescuing the good people. However, what we read from the above hadith is Allah doing the opposite. This goes against the logic of punishment and reward, or punishment given exclusively to the bad individuals, as we read the following Qur’anic verse:

Qur’an 11:44
“And it was said: O earth! Swallow up your water and to the sky Be. Clear your clouds, And the water was made to sink and the judgment was completed, and it (Noah’s ship) came to rest upon A-Judi, and it was said: A far elimination for the wrongdoing folk.”

At the same time, it’s a contradiction to the story of Lot who is considered a prophet of Islam. According to Lot’s story, Allah made rocks rain on his people (Lot’s) as a punishment for their sins, as we read in Qur’an 15:59-74.

This story was also taken from the Bible with Muhammad’s own fabricated tale added to it. If we go to the Bible in the Book of Genesis 18:26, we would notice that the God of the Christians and the Jews is willing to refrain from His punishment even if there were only 50 righteous people in the entire city. Whereas the god of Islam, according to the above hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6622, “Allah then would kill all the good ones and replace them with bad ones.” Read with me the following Biblical verse:

Genesis 18:26 - KJV
“And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”

From reading the above hadith, we can gather the following ideas and understand the mentality and nature of Allah – how he thinks, what he wants and seeks, what cheers him up, and what angers him:

1. Allah needs our sins.

2. Our sins bring Allah joy and he rejoices when we ask for forgiveness.

3. Allah would not hesitate to punish us by death if we had not sinned, or, if we had not given him joy by asking him for forgiveness of our sins.
4. Deception is one of Allah’s tools, which is the same tool that Satan uses. In order for Allah to deceive us, he plays the game of good cop bad cop, wherein he’s the good guy and we’re the bad guys. It constitutes of us chasing him by begging for his forgiveness and him causing us to sin, repeating the whole scenario over and over again. This is how Allah enjoys this world and rewards himself: by causing disorder and deception so that we would try to please him by asking for forgiveness.

5. The God that we have as Christians did not create us to make us ask for forgiveness, but He created us to share His glory with us. This is why we’ve been taught to refer and talk to Him as “our Father.” Our Father is the opposite of the god of Islam. He would not wipe us off if we did not commit sins just so He could replace us with a sinful community. It’s never been about His needs but it’s all about Him loving us and inviting each individual to have a personal relationship with Him.

John 3:16 - KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In conclusion, Allah is literally a sick god suffering from low self-esteem symptoms. He is moody, unpredictable, and is filled with anger. No one can or could understand him. He does things based on his selfishness and egotistical interests. We are victims of his deception, which for me is a clear observation that he is nothing but Satan hiding behind the name Allah.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

Hizo ni porojo elimu ya hadithi ile imekuzidi ubongo hujui lolote...achana na hadith mada hapa n kitabu cha Enock kwann kilifutwa?

 

[Mpini Wa Chuma]

Islam is a religion of satan.


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

Why the book of Enock was emmited in the thing yourselves call it the bible?

 

[dagii]

Ntapataje cha kiswahili wapendwa??

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[namanaga]

Ok

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[2013]

Hizo ni porojo elimu ya hadithi ile imekuzidi ubongo hujui lolote...achana na hadith mada hapa n kitabu cha Enock kwann kilifutwa?

Kitabu hivi, havijafutwa. Bali hakitumiki, kwasababu Kipo kinyume kabisa na Neno LA Kweli La Mungu na Sheria yake linalotambuliwa.
Yaani kitabu sio Canonical



1 Timotheo 1:3-7
[3]Kama vile nilivyokusihi ukae Efeso, nilipokuwa nikisafiri kwenda Makedonia, ili uwakataze wengine WASIFUNDISHE ELIMU NYINGINE;
[4]wala wasiangalie hadithi na nasaba zisizo na ukomo, ziletazo maswali wala si madaraka ya Mungu yaliyo katika imani; basi ufanye hivyo.
[5]Walakini mwisho wa agizo hilo ni upendo utokao katika moyo safi na dhamiri njema, na imani isiyo na unafiki.
[6]Wengine wakiyakosa hayo wamegeukia maneno ya ubatili;
[7]wapenda kuwa waalimu wa sheria, ingawa hawayafahamu wasemayo wala mambo yale wayanenayo kwa uthabiti.


Yesu ndiye Neno LA Uzima Lidumulo hata Milele.

 

[mwaisabila]

Kitabu hivi, havijafutwa. Bali hakitumiki, kwasababu Kipo kinyume kabisa na Neno LA Kweli La Mungu na Sheria yake linalotambuliwa.
Yaani kitabu sio Canonical



1 Timotheo 1:3-7
[3]Kama vile nilivyokusihi ukae Efeso, nilipokuwa nikisafiri kwenda Makedonia, ili uwakataze wengine WASIFUNDISHE ELIMU NYINGINE;
[4]wala wasiangalie hadithi na nasaba zisizo na ukomo, ziletazo maswali wala si madaraka ya Mungu yaliyo katika imani; basi ufanye hivyo.
[5]Walakini mwisho wa agizo hilo ni upendo utokao katika moyo safi na dhamiri njema, na imani isiyo na unafiki.
[6]Wengine wakiyakosa hayo wamegeukia maneno ya ubatili;
[7]wapenda kuwa waalimu wa sheria, ingawa hawayafahamu wasemayo wala mambo yale wayanenayo kwa uthabiti.


Yesu ndiye Neno LA Uzima Lidumulo hata Milele.

sidhani kama ni iyo
hayo majamaa yanafungiwa gerezani chini ardhini mwishoni jamaa anashuka kwenda kupigana nao yeye na malaika ili kuwatokomeza wasirudi duniani maana wataangamiza dunia katika hayo mapigano malaika karibia wote waliuawa akabaki mkubwa wa malaika alichokifanya ni kuangusha majengo yote ya iyo jela wakafa wote humohumo.......

Ina itwa IMORTALS


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[Gavana]

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

"McJesus" Art Exhibit Causing Problems in Israel

 

[2013]

"McJesus" Art Exhibit Causing Problems in Israel

All MuslimS MUST RESPECT JESUS CHRIST. SINCE JESUS CHRIST IS "THE ETERNAL WORD" OF GOD.(AN NISAA VERSE 171)

JESUS CHRIST IS "THE SPIRIT PROCEEDING" FROM GOD.

There's NO 'Compromise' in That in anyway.

Christians hold no responsible for any Mohammads'greatest blunders.

According to Muslims. It took 40 Years for Mohammad to become prophet of allah.

Meanwhile it took less that an hour for Jesus Christ (in the cradle) to self proclaim as prophet of almighty God.


******
If Mohammad is Truly meet the angel of God in the Cave, why he didn't say SALAM ALEIKUM TO Mohammad?. Like When an angel of God visiting Mary the Mother of Jesus he said Shalom to Mary.(i.e Salama aleikum). Do not be afraid I have good news.

Instead the angel was behaving like a robbery when encountered Mohammad in the Cave. He choked Mohammad very badly. He almost killed him.

What do you think Mr. potatoe tater tots?

 

[Gavana]

All MuslimS MUST RESPECT JESUS CHRIST. SINCE JESUS CHRIST IS "THE ETERNAL WORD" OF GOD.(AN NISAA VERSE 171)

JESUS CHRIST IS "THE SPIRIT PROCEEDING" FROM GOD.

There's NO 'Compromise' in That in anyway.

Christians hold no responsible for any Mohammads'greatest blunders.

According to Muslims. It took 40 Years for Mohammad to become prophet of allah.

Meanwhile it took less that an hour for Jesus Christ (in the cradle) to self proclaim as prophet of almighty God.


******
If Mohammad is Truly meet the angel of God in the Cave, why he didn't say SALAM ALEIKUM TO Mohammad?. Like When an angel of God visiting Mary the Mother of Jesus he said Shalom to Mary.(i.e Salama aleikum). Do not be afraid I have good news.

Instead the angel was behaving like a robbery when encountered Mohammad in the Cave. He choked Mohammad very badly. He almost killed him.

What do you think Mr. potatoe tater tots?

Dude , take it EASY, YOUR CHOSEN PEOPLE ARE NOW PLAYING AGAIN WITH YOUR BOSS


.
Witness to Murder

Christian saint gets off to a cracking start

" And they cast Stephen out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul ... And Saul was consenting unto his death."

– Acts 7.58,8.1.

"When they were put to death, I gave my voice against them ... Being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."

– Acts 26.10,11.

Guess that shows the sort of fanatic we're dealing with!

 

[Gavana]

All MuslimS MUST RESPECT JESUS CHRIST. SINCE JESUS CHRIST IS "THE ETERNAL WORD" OF GOD.(AN NISAA VERSE 171)

JESUS CHRIST IS "THE SPIRIT PROCEEDING" FROM GOD.

There's NO 'Compromise' in That in anyway.

Christians hold no responsible for any Mohammads'greatest blunders.

According to Muslims. It took 40 Years for Mohammad to become prophet of allah.

Meanwhile it took less that an hour for Jesus Christ (in the cradle) to self proclaim as prophet of almighty God.


******
If Mohammad is Truly meet the angel of God in the Cave, why he didn't say SALAM ALEIKUM TO Mohammad?. Like When an angel of God visiting Mary the Mother of Jesus he said Shalom to Mary.(i.e Salama aleikum). Do not be afraid I have good news.

Instead the angel was behaving like a robbery when encountered Mohammad in the Cave. He choked Mohammad very badly. He almost killed him.

What do you think Mr. potatoe tater tots?

JESUS CHRIST IS "THE SPIRIT PROCEEDING" FROM GOD. not the spirit from Jesus??


Big head

"I magnify mine office ... I laboured more abundantly than they all ... As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia ... for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles"

– Romans 11.13; 1 Corinthians 15.10; 2 Corinthians 11.10; 2 Corinthians 12.11.

Paul's epistles are awash with self-references and half of his 37 uses of the word 'apostle' are a reference to himself.

 

[Gavana]

All MuslimS MUST RESPECT JESUS CHRIST. SINCE JESUS CHRIST IS "THE ETERNAL WORD" OF GOD.(AN NISAA VERSE 171)

JESUS CHRIST IS "THE SPIRIT PROCEEDING" FROM GOD.

There's NO 'Compromise' in That in anyway.

Christians hold no responsible for any Mohammads'greatest blunders.

According to Muslims. It took 40 Years for Mohammad to become prophet of allah.

Meanwhile it took less that an hour for Jesus Christ (in the cradle) to self proclaim as prophet of almighty God.


******
If Mohammad is Truly meet the angel of God in the Cave, why he didn't say SALAM ALEIKUM TO Mohammad?. Like When an angel of God visiting Mary the Mother of Jesus he said Shalom to Mary.(i.e Salama aleikum). Do not be afraid I have good news.

Instead the angel was behaving like a robbery when encountered Mohammad in the Cave. He choked Mohammad very badly. He almost killed him.

What do you think Mr. potatoe tater tots?